Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And like Zayd, add a dammah and open it from *** like 'O Zayd ibn Sa'id, do not be weak.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said:
"And like Zayd, add a dammah and open it from *** like 'O Zayd ibn Sa'id, do not be weak'":
Yes, sit down, everyone. "Like Zayd": Zayd is a proper noun, or is it not? What does it deserve? —Pray two rak'ahs, O Ali— It deserves to be built on the dammah, so you say: O Zayd, but if it is followed by "ibn" (son of), and after "ibn" is a proper noun, if it is followed by the word "ibn," or for example "bint" (daughter of) and after it is a proper noun, the author says: it is permissible for Zayd to have either the dammah or the fathah: "add a dammah and open it", okay, his example is: "O Zayd ibn Sa'id", where is the vocative?
The student: O Zayd.
The Shaykh : Yes, this hamzah is one of the letters of vocative. Which letters of vocative have we not covered?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, we say: the hamzah is a letter of vocative, Zayd is a vocative noun built on the dammah in the position of accusative, and it is permissible to say the hamzah is a letter of vocative, and Zayd is a vocative noun in the accusative case due to vocative, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end, for this reason he said: "add a dammah", on the condition that it is built,
"and open it": on the condition that it is in the accusative case, okay.
"Zayd ibn Sa'id": is it followed by "ibn" or not? Yes? It is followed by "ibn," and Sa'id?
The student: Sa'id is a proper noun.
The Shaykh : A proper noun, yes, so: if a proper noun is found and it is followed by "ibn," and after "ibn" is a proper noun, then the first proper noun is permissible to be built on the dammah, or in the accusative case, okay, and "ibn"?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Ibn" is in the accusative case in all cases, because it is a possessive noun, "ibn" is in the accusative case because it is a possessive noun, and what is the grammatical position of the second proper noun?
The student: Genitive due to the dependency.
The Shaykh : It is in the genitive case due to the possessive relationship, yes?
The student: His saying: "ibn"...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, and it is in the accusative case because it is not built on its grammatical position, because if it were called out to itself, it would have to be in the accusative case, so it is in the accusative case in all cases, okay, now the author says: "like Zayd" only.
As for "ibn," if someone asks: why did he not speak about the ruling of "ibn"? We say: he did speak about it by its inclusion in the generality of his saying: "and the possessive noun", it is included in this, "ibn": is a possessive noun, so it is in the accusative case with the fathah, okay, if we assume that the first name is not a proper noun, what is its ruling? It must be built, for example: O boy, son of Zayd, "boy" is a common noun, it is not a proper noun, O boy, son of Zayd.
"And like Zayd, add a dammah and open it from *** like 'O Zayd ibn Sa'id, do not be weak'":
Yes, sit down, everyone. "Like Zayd": Zayd is a proper noun, or is it not? What does it deserve? —Pray two rak'ahs, O Ali— It deserves to be built on the dammah, so you say: O Zayd, but if it is followed by "ibn" (son of), and after "ibn" is a proper noun, if it is followed by the word "ibn," or for example "bint" (daughter of) and after it is a proper noun, the author says: it is permissible for Zayd to have either the dammah or the fathah: "add a dammah and open it", okay, his example is: "O Zayd ibn Sa'id", where is the vocative?
The student: O Zayd.
The Shaykh : Yes, this hamzah is one of the letters of vocative. Which letters of vocative have we not covered?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, we say: the hamzah is a letter of vocative, Zayd is a vocative noun built on the dammah in the position of accusative, and it is permissible to say the hamzah is a letter of vocative, and Zayd is a vocative noun in the accusative case due to vocative, and the sign of its accusative is a visible fathah at its end, for this reason he said: "add a dammah", on the condition that it is built,
"and open it": on the condition that it is in the accusative case, okay.
"Zayd ibn Sa'id": is it followed by "ibn" or not? Yes? It is followed by "ibn," and Sa'id?
The student: Sa'id is a proper noun.
The Shaykh : A proper noun, yes, so: if a proper noun is found and it is followed by "ibn," and after "ibn" is a proper noun, then the first proper noun is permissible to be built on the dammah, or in the accusative case, okay, and "ibn"?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : "Ibn" is in the accusative case in all cases, because it is a possessive noun, "ibn" is in the accusative case because it is a possessive noun, and what is the grammatical position of the second proper noun?
The student: Genitive due to the dependency.
The Shaykh : It is in the genitive case due to the possessive relationship, yes?
The student: His saying: "ibn"...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, and it is in the accusative case because it is not built on its grammatical position, because if it were called out to itself, it would have to be in the accusative case, so it is in the accusative case in all cases, okay, now the author says: "like Zayd" only.
As for "ibn," if someone asks: why did he not speak about the ruling of "ibn"? We say: he did speak about it by its inclusion in the generality of his saying: "and the possessive noun", it is included in this, "ibn": is a possessive noun, so it is in the accusative case with the fathah, okay, if we assume that the first name is not a proper noun, what is its ruling? It must be built, for example: O boy, son of Zayd, "boy" is a common noun, it is not a proper noun, O boy, son of Zayd.