Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And it is accompanied by al after a description *** it is obligatory to be raised with the one who knows."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And it is accompanied by al":
And is it not accompanied in your view?
The student: It is accompanied.
The Shaykh :"And it is accompanied by al after a description *** it is obligatory to be raised with the one who knows":
This verse has some difficulty in its structure and its meaning. First: it is permissible for "accompanied" to have two options; both options are permissible: the nominative and the accusative. If we say that it is in the nominative, then "ay" is the first subject, and "accompanied" is the second subject, and its predicate is the clause "it is obligatory," and the connector is omitted in this estimation. Its estimation is: "it is obligatory for it." So, "ay" accompanied by al, it is obligatory for it, after "ay" meaning after it, a description for it. Yes, in the nominative, I do not know, by Allah, this is in the nominative!!
The student: It is not clear.
The Shaykh : Well, it is not clear. We say: "accompanied" has two options in it: the accusative and the nominative. In the nominative, we begin with the nominative and say: "ay": "ay" is the subject, "ay" entirely is the subject because its word form is intended.
"accompanied by al": "accompanied" is also a subject, a second subject.
"and it is obligatory": And what is obligatory?
The student: It is obligatory to be in the nominative.
The Shaykh : In the second half: "it is obligatory to be in the nominative": this is the predicate of the second subject, and the second subject and its predicate are in the position of the nominative as the predicate of the first subject. Do you understand now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, what remains for us is that if the predicate of the subject is a clause, it must have a connector that links it to the subject. Where is the connector?! The connector is omitted, its estimation is: "it is obligatory for it." So what is the meaning of the verse then? The meaning of the verse is: "that what is accompanied by al is obligatory for 'ay' in the state of being a description raised after it". So we now have the author giving us three benefits: First: that what follows "ay" must be accompanied by al. Second: it must come after it. Where do we take "after it" from?
The student: After.
The Shaykh : "After": meaning after it. And the third: that its grammatical position is a description for "ay," due to his saying: "description". So "ay" is brought as a connector for the vocative of what contains al, a connector for the vocative of what contains al. What is the ruling of what comes after it and contains al? Its ruling is that it is a description for it, a description taken from his saying: "accompanied by al after a description", it is obligatory to be in the nominative. Yes, with the one who knows. And it has been mentioned to us previously that it is not permissible to vocatize what contains al directly with the yaa, except in two places. What are they?
The student: With Allah and the narrated sentences.
The Shaykh : With Allah and the narrated sentences. So it is not permissible for you to say: O man, it is not permissible for you to say: O man.
So what do I do if I want to vocatize the man? I say: O ay man, so I bring "ay," and it becomes accompanied by al, coming after it as a description for it. And this is much in the Qur'an: , and what is similar to them.
The student: Is it correct for us to say "instead"?
The Shaykh : This is one case. As for the reading of the accusative, "and it is accompanied by al": then the meaning is that "ay" is obligatory to be accompanied by al, that "ay" is obligatory to be accompanied by al. So is "accompanied by al" obligatory here, or is "ay" obligatory?
The student: "Ay."
The Shaykh : Unlike the first estimation. In the first estimation, the obligatory thing is the accompanied one. And in the second estimation, which is "accompanied" in the accusative, the obligatory thing is "ay." Does the meaning change? It does not change, because if the accompanied one is obligatory, "accompanied by al," if it is obligatory for "ay," then it is obligatory that "ay" is also obligatory for it. So in reality, the meaning does not differ; the meaning does not differ, only the grammar differs.
And in summary: since it is established that "yaa" does not directly address what contains al, ha, what will it be, except in two places as mentioned previously, then it is obligatory to bring "ay" as a connector for it. So it is as if the vocative in reality is what comes after "ay." For this reason, we say: that "ay" here is a connector. How is its grammar? We say: for example: "yaa" is the letter of vocative, "ay" is the vocative built on the damma in the position of the accusative, and "ha" is for emphasis. The Prophet, ha?
The student: An attribute.
The Shaykh : A description for "ay" built on the damma in the position of the accusative. And here we say: built on the damma in the position of the accusative, because it is the vocative in reality, and we only brought "ay" because of the dislike of what contains al following the yaa. And the author's saying:
"it is obligatory to be in the nominative with the one who knows":
With the one who knows, is a reference to the fact that there are people who say: the accusative is not obligatory in it, and that both options are permissible in it, and that is the case. For some grammarians say: that the accusative is permissible in it, so it is permissible for you to say: O ay man in the accusative, following the position of "ay," because its position is what?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative. But in any case, the nominative here is preferred by consensus, and it is what the Qur'an pronounced: and , and what is similar to that.
And is it not accompanied in your view?
The student: It is accompanied.
The Shaykh :"And it is accompanied by al after a description *** it is obligatory to be raised with the one who knows":
This verse has some difficulty in its structure and its meaning. First: it is permissible for "accompanied" to have two options; both options are permissible: the nominative and the accusative. If we say that it is in the nominative, then "ay" is the first subject, and "accompanied" is the second subject, and its predicate is the clause "it is obligatory," and the connector is omitted in this estimation. Its estimation is: "it is obligatory for it." So, "ay" accompanied by al, it is obligatory for it, after "ay" meaning after it, a description for it. Yes, in the nominative, I do not know, by Allah, this is in the nominative!!
The student: It is not clear.
The Shaykh : Well, it is not clear. We say: "accompanied" has two options in it: the accusative and the nominative. In the nominative, we begin with the nominative and say: "ay": "ay" is the subject, "ay" entirely is the subject because its word form is intended.
"accompanied by al": "accompanied" is also a subject, a second subject.
"and it is obligatory": And what is obligatory?
The student: It is obligatory to be in the nominative.
The Shaykh : In the second half: "it is obligatory to be in the nominative": this is the predicate of the second subject, and the second subject and its predicate are in the position of the nominative as the predicate of the first subject. Do you understand now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, what remains for us is that if the predicate of the subject is a clause, it must have a connector that links it to the subject. Where is the connector?! The connector is omitted, its estimation is: "it is obligatory for it." So what is the meaning of the verse then? The meaning of the verse is: "that what is accompanied by al is obligatory for 'ay' in the state of being a description raised after it". So we now have the author giving us three benefits: First: that what follows "ay" must be accompanied by al. Second: it must come after it. Where do we take "after it" from?
The student: After.
The Shaykh : "After": meaning after it. And the third: that its grammatical position is a description for "ay," due to his saying: "description". So "ay" is brought as a connector for the vocative of what contains al, a connector for the vocative of what contains al. What is the ruling of what comes after it and contains al? Its ruling is that it is a description for it, a description taken from his saying: "accompanied by al after a description", it is obligatory to be in the nominative. Yes, with the one who knows. And it has been mentioned to us previously that it is not permissible to vocatize what contains al directly with the yaa, except in two places. What are they?
The student: With Allah and the narrated sentences.
The Shaykh : With Allah and the narrated sentences. So it is not permissible for you to say: O man, it is not permissible for you to say: O man.
So what do I do if I want to vocatize the man? I say: O ay man, so I bring "ay," and it becomes accompanied by al, coming after it as a description for it. And this is much in the Qur'an:
O Prophet
يا أيها النبيO Messenger
يا أيها الرسولO man
يا أيها الإنسانThe student: Is it correct for us to say "instead"?
The Shaykh : This is one case. As for the reading of the accusative, "and it is accompanied by al": then the meaning is that "ay" is obligatory to be accompanied by al, that "ay" is obligatory to be accompanied by al. So is "accompanied by al" obligatory here, or is "ay" obligatory?
The student: "Ay."
The Shaykh : Unlike the first estimation. In the first estimation, the obligatory thing is the accompanied one. And in the second estimation, which is "accompanied" in the accusative, the obligatory thing is "ay." Does the meaning change? It does not change, because if the accompanied one is obligatory, "accompanied by al," if it is obligatory for "ay," then it is obligatory that "ay" is also obligatory for it. So in reality, the meaning does not differ; the meaning does not differ, only the grammar differs.
And in summary: since it is established that "yaa" does not directly address what contains al, ha, what will it be, except in two places as mentioned previously, then it is obligatory to bring "ay" as a connector for it. So it is as if the vocative in reality is what comes after "ay." For this reason, we say: that "ay" here is a connector. How is its grammar? We say:
O Prophet
يا أيها النبيThe student: An attribute.
The Shaykh : A description for "ay" built on the damma in the position of the accusative. And here we say: built on the damma in the position of the accusative, because it is the vocative in reality, and we only brought "ay" because of the dislike of what contains al following the yaa. And the author's saying:
"it is obligatory to be in the nominative with the one who knows":
With the one who knows, is a reference to the fact that there are people who say: the accusative is not obligatory in it, and that both options are permissible in it, and that is the case. For some grammarians say: that the accusative is permissible in it, so it is permissible for you to say: O ay man in the accusative, following the position of "ay," because its position is what?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative. But in any case, the nominative here is preferred by consensus, and it is what the Qur'an pronounced: