Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the fa' may be omitted along with what it conjoins *** and the waw when there is no ambiguity..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the fa' may be omitted along with what it conjoins":
"And the fa' may be omitted along with what it conjoins" means along with its conjoined term; the fa' is omitted along with its conjoined term, but on the condition that ambiguity is avoided. If ambiguity is not avoided, omission is not permissible. Ibn Malik mentioned a useful rule regarding this, which is his saying: "And omitting what is known is permissible". Yes, this is a rule from the principles of grammar in reality. If the conjoined term is known, the fa' may be omitted along with its conjoined term; the fa' and its conjoined term are omitted. They gave as an example for this the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:185] [Al-Baqarah 2:184]. They said that the intended meaning is: "So if he breaks the fast, then a corresponding number of days," so the fa' and its conjoined term, "so if he breaks the fast," were omitted. Is there ambiguity in it or not? There is no ambiguity, because it is known that the corresponding number of days is not obligatory except if one breaks the fast; if one fasts, there is no corresponding number of days. This is an example. Likewise, the waw may be omitted along with its conjoined term, but on the condition that there is no ambiguity; on the condition that there is no ambiguity. What is an example of that?
The student: His saying: "The rider of the camel is Talihan," Talihan.
The Shaykh : No, "The rider of the camel is Talihan."
The student: Talihan, yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: "The rider of the camel and the camel."
Another student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : No, no, "The rider of the camel is Talihan."
The student: This is a defect in the book...
The Shaykh : In reality, this is a weak example, and the truth is, if they had not mentioned it, we would not have spoken about it: "The rider of the camel." They say: the intended meaning is "and the camel," Talihan means weak. They said: and the evidence that it is omitted is that Talihan is dual, and "the rider of the camel" is singular, and one does not report with the dual about the singular. And on this basis, there is something omitted. The intended meaning is: "The rider of the camel," hmm?
The student: "And the camel."
The Shaykh : "And the camel is Talihan," meaning: weak. And the truth is, if we did not have this example with us, it appears that it is not permissible. Yes, because when would this example remain and when would it be read? But we say: what is known, its omission is permissible, meaning this rule: "And omitting what is known is permissible".
The student: But for us, it is not known, if we read the phrase.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The student: It is not known.
The Shaykh : It is absolutely not known. If I said: "The rider of the camel is Talihan," we say: this is a grammatical error, without doubt.
The student: Or his name!
The Shaykh : Hmm? Or "Talihan is the name of the rider of the camel," if we say with a dammah on the ta, but they mark it with a fathah on the ta. In any case, this is in reality weak in its name, he and his camel and its example, and they are all weak. We ask Allah for well-being.
"And the fa' may be omitted along with what it conjoins" means along with its conjoined term; the fa' is omitted along with its conjoined term, but on the condition that ambiguity is avoided. If ambiguity is not avoided, omission is not permissible. Ibn Malik mentioned a useful rule regarding this, which is his saying: "And omitting what is known is permissible". Yes, this is a rule from the principles of grammar in reality. If the conjoined term is known, the fa' may be omitted along with its conjoined term; the fa' and its conjoined term are omitted. They gave as an example for this the saying of Allah the Exalted:
and whoever is ill or on a journey - then an equal number of other days
ومن كان مريضا أو على سفر فعدة من أيام أخرan equal number of days [are to be made up]
فعدة من أيام أخرThe student: His saying: "The rider of the camel is Talihan," Talihan.
The Shaykh : No, "The rider of the camel is Talihan."
The student: Talihan, yes.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: "The rider of the camel and the camel."
Another student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : No, no, "The rider of the camel is Talihan."
The student: This is a defect in the book...
The Shaykh : In reality, this is a weak example, and the truth is, if they had not mentioned it, we would not have spoken about it: "The rider of the camel." They say: the intended meaning is "and the camel," Talihan means weak. They said: and the evidence that it is omitted is that Talihan is dual, and "the rider of the camel" is singular, and one does not report with the dual about the singular. And on this basis, there is something omitted. The intended meaning is: "The rider of the camel," hmm?
The student: "And the camel."
The Shaykh : "And the camel is Talihan," meaning: weak. And the truth is, if we did not have this example with us, it appears that it is not permissible. Yes, because when would this example remain and when would it be read? But we say: what is known, its omission is permissible, meaning this rule: "And omitting what is known is permissible".
The student: But for us, it is not known, if we read the phrase.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The student: It is not known.
The Shaykh : It is absolutely not known. If I said: "The rider of the camel is Talihan," we say: this is a grammatical error, without doubt.
The student: Or his name!
The Shaykh : Hmm? Or "Talihan is the name of the rider of the camel," if we say with a dammah on the ta, but they mark it with a fathah on the ta. In any case, this is in reality weak in its name, he and his camel and its example, and they are all weak. We ask Allah for well-being.