Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the indefinite singular and the annexed *** and its like, decline as lacking, without dispute."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the indefinite singular and the annexed *** and its like, decline as lacking, without dispute":
It means: and decline the indefinite singular. "Indefinite" means the indefinite noun (nakirah). The intended meaning of "singular" here is what is not annexed (mudaf) nor similar to it. So the indefinite singular is declined, and for this reason he said: "decline". For example, you say: "O man, save so-and-so." And they said, like the blind man: "O man, take my hand." They did not intend a specific man; they intended any man among men. Does this become an indefinite noun or not?
It becomes an indefinite noun, so it is declined with the fathah. You say: "O man, do such and such." You are not addressing one specific man, a particular man; you are addressing any man. And you also say: "O student, be diligent." "O student": whom are you addressing?
The student: Any student.
The Shaykh : Any student, so it is declined. And you say: "O Muslims," you are not addressing specific Muslims. "O Muslims" is declined or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is declined. The reason is that it is an indefinite noun, the indefinite singular. The second: "and the annexed": This second one, the annexed (mudaf), is also declined in the vocative, like: "O servant of Allah." You say: "Ya" is the letter of vocative, and "servant" is the vocative, declined by the yaa of vocative, and the sign of its declension is a visible fathah at its end. "Servant" is annexed, and the Divine Name is what it is annexed to. If I said: "O servant of Allah" (with dammah), is that correct?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. It is necessary to say: "O servant of Allah" (with fathah). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Mishkat al-Masabih 1234. And similarly: "O My servants," here: , is that so?!
[Az-Zumar 39:53], and there are many examples of this. And you also say: "O boy of Zayd, come forward." Is it annexed or not?
The student: It is attached.
The Shaykh : "O boy of Zayd": the yaa is the letter of vocative, and "boy" is the vocative, declined by the visible fathah. "Boy" is annexed, and "Zayd" is what it is annexed to, in the genitive case due to the annexation, and the sign of its genitive is a visible kasrah at its end. If I said: "O boy of Zayd" (with dammah), this would be prohibited. Rather, you say: "O boy" (with fathah). This is the meaning of Ibn Malik's saying here: "and the annexed".
He said: "and its like, decline as lacking, without dispute":
The similar to the annexed (shibh al-mudaf), they say: is that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning. And that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning is either as an agent (fa'il) with it, or as an object (maf'ul) with it, or as a genitive (majrur). This is the similar to the annexed: that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning: either as an agent with it, yes, or as an object with it, or as a genitive with it. You say: "O noble one whose father is noble, come forward." "Noble" here is a specific vocative, but it is similar to the annexed, because something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning, as an agent with it. Is it not an object with it?
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : "O noble one whose father is noble," as an agent with it, is that so?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the object with it, you say: "O seller whose garment is with me, you have a garment." Here? Something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning as an object with it. And similarly, what they gave as an example: "O one who ascends a mountain": "ascends" here is an intended indefinite noun, meaning a specific one; the intended meaning is this specific person, but something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning, so it became similar to the annexed. As for the genitive, you say: "O gentle one with the servants, be gentle with me." "O gentle one with the servants": is "gentle" an intended indefinite noun or not intended?
The student: Intended.
The Shaykh : Intended, directed to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), but "with the servants" is attached to it to complete its meaning, and it is in the genitive case by the preposition. "O gentle one, be gentle with the servants." Do you understand, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so what is the similar to the annexed?
That to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning, either as an agent with it, or as an object with it, or as a genitive with it. Okay, you say: "O reader whose book is with you, reflect on it," or: "O reader of the book, reflect on it!"
The student: It is attached as an object.
The Shaykh : Is this an object?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if I said: "O reader of the book," "O reader"?!
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why?
The student: Because it is similar to the annexed.
The Shaykh : Because it is similar to the annexed. So your saying: "O reader of the book" is like your saying: "O reader of the book." And if you said: "O reader of the book," what happened?
The student: It is attached.
The Shaykh : It became annexed. For this reason, they say: this is similar to the annexed. "O noble one whose father is noble" is like your saying: "O noble one of the father." So it is exactly similar to the annexed. Yes, and on this basis, you can infer. So there are three things that are declined. What are they?
The student: The non-intended indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : The non-intended indefinite noun, and the annexed, and the similar to the annexed. If you call out to these, you must decline them. What remains for us? We are left with two things that are built on what they are raised by, and they are: the proper noun (ism 'ilm) and the intended indefinite noun, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, the proper noun and the intended indefinite noun. So the categories are now five: a proper noun or a demonstrative noun, or the one that is... the important thing is that it is a definite noun (ma'ruf). It is better to say: a definite noun. The definite noun and the intended indefinite noun, what is done with them?
The student: They are built on what they are raised by.
The Shaykh : They are built on what they are raised by. Okay, the non-intended indefinite noun, and the annexed, and the similar to the annexed?
The student: They are declined.
The Shaykh : They are declined, not "they are declined" (plural), because there are three. These three are declined, and the two previous ones are built on what they are raised by. Yes, he said:
"and its like, decline as lacking, without dispute": What is the grammatical analysis of "lacking" (aadam)?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : It is a state (haal) from the agent of "decline." And "without dispute"?
The student: Object.
The Shaykh : It is the object of "lacking." It means as if Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) is saying: the grammarians agreed on that, or the Arabs agreed on that, that these three are declined.
It means: and decline the indefinite singular. "Indefinite" means the indefinite noun (nakirah). The intended meaning of "singular" here is what is not annexed (mudaf) nor similar to it. So the indefinite singular is declined, and for this reason he said: "decline". For example, you say: "O man, save so-and-so." And they said, like the blind man: "O man, take my hand." They did not intend a specific man; they intended any man among men. Does this become an indefinite noun or not?
It becomes an indefinite noun, so it is declined with the fathah. You say: "O man, do such and such." You are not addressing one specific man, a particular man; you are addressing any man. And you also say: "O student, be diligent." "O student": whom are you addressing?
The student: Any student.
The Shaykh : Any student, so it is declined. And you say: "O Muslims," you are not addressing specific Muslims. "O Muslims" is declined or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is declined. The reason is that it is an indefinite noun, the indefinite singular. The second: "and the annexed": This second one, the annexed (mudaf), is also declined in the vocative, like: "O servant of Allah." You say: "Ya" is the letter of vocative, and "servant" is the vocative, declined by the yaa of vocative, and the sign of its declension is a visible fathah at its end. "Servant" is annexed, and the Divine Name is what it is annexed to. If I said: "O servant of Allah" (with dammah), is that correct?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not correct. It is necessary to say: "O servant of Allah" (with fathah). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Don’t be like so and so, ‘Abdallah. He used to get up during the night, then abandoned the practice.
يا عبدَ الله لا تكن مثل فلان ، كان يقوم من الليل فترك قيام الليلO My servants, fear Allah.
يا عبادي فاتقونSay, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah
قل يا عبادي الذين أسرفوا على أنفسهم لا تقنطوا من رحمة اللهThe student: It is attached.
The Shaykh : "O boy of Zayd": the yaa is the letter of vocative, and "boy" is the vocative, declined by the visible fathah. "Boy" is annexed, and "Zayd" is what it is annexed to, in the genitive case due to the annexation, and the sign of its genitive is a visible kasrah at its end. If I said: "O boy of Zayd" (with dammah), this would be prohibited. Rather, you say: "O boy" (with fathah). This is the meaning of Ibn Malik's saying here: "and the annexed".
He said: "and its like, decline as lacking, without dispute":
The similar to the annexed (shibh al-mudaf), they say: is that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning. And that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning is either as an agent (fa'il) with it, or as an object (maf'ul) with it, or as a genitive (majrur). This is the similar to the annexed: that to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning: either as an agent with it, yes, or as an object with it, or as a genitive with it. You say: "O noble one whose father is noble, come forward." "Noble" here is a specific vocative, but it is similar to the annexed, because something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning, as an agent with it. Is it not an object with it?
The student: The subject.
The Shaykh : "O noble one whose father is noble," as an agent with it, is that so?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the object with it, you say: "O seller whose garment is with me, you have a garment." Here? Something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning as an object with it. And similarly, what they gave as an example: "O one who ascends a mountain": "ascends" here is an intended indefinite noun, meaning a specific one; the intended meaning is this specific person, but something is attached to it for the completion of its meaning, so it became similar to the annexed. As for the genitive, you say: "O gentle one with the servants, be gentle with me." "O gentle one with the servants": is "gentle" an intended indefinite noun or not intended?
The student: Intended.
The Shaykh : Intended, directed to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), but "with the servants" is attached to it to complete its meaning, and it is in the genitive case by the preposition. "O gentle one, be gentle with the servants." Do you understand, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so what is the similar to the annexed?
That to which something is attached for the completion of its meaning, either as an agent with it, or as an object with it, or as a genitive with it. Okay, you say: "O reader whose book is with you, reflect on it," or: "O reader of the book, reflect on it!"
The student: It is attached as an object.
The Shaykh : Is this an object?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if I said: "O reader of the book," "O reader"?!
The student: It is not correct.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why?
The student: Because it is similar to the annexed.
The Shaykh : Because it is similar to the annexed. So your saying: "O reader of the book" is like your saying: "O reader of the book." And if you said: "O reader of the book," what happened?
The student: It is attached.
The Shaykh : It became annexed. For this reason, they say: this is similar to the annexed. "O noble one whose father is noble" is like your saying: "O noble one of the father." So it is exactly similar to the annexed. Yes, and on this basis, you can infer. So there are three things that are declined. What are they?
The student: The non-intended indefinite noun.
The Shaykh : The non-intended indefinite noun, and the annexed, and the similar to the annexed. If you call out to these, you must decline them. What remains for us? We are left with two things that are built on what they are raised by, and they are: the proper noun (ism 'ilm) and the intended indefinite noun, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, the proper noun and the intended indefinite noun. So the categories are now five: a proper noun or a demonstrative noun, or the one that is... the important thing is that it is a definite noun (ma'ruf). It is better to say: a definite noun. The definite noun and the intended indefinite noun, what is done with them?
The student: They are built on what they are raised by.
The Shaykh : They are built on what they are raised by. Okay, the non-intended indefinite noun, and the annexed, and the similar to the annexed?
The student: They are declined.
The Shaykh : They are declined, not "they are declined" (plural), because there are three. These three are declined, and the two previous ones are built on what they are raised by. Yes, he said:
"and its like, decline as lacking, without dispute": What is the grammatical analysis of "lacking" (aadam)?
The student: A *hal*.
The Shaykh : It is a state (haal) from the agent of "decline." And "without dispute"?
The student: Object.
The Shaykh : It is the object of "lacking." It means as if Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) is saying: the grammarians agreed on that, or the Arabs agreed on that, that these three are declined.