Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): In the case of "Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws, the second is in the accusative case *** and the first is either raised or opened, so that you may hit the mark."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said:
"In the case of Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws, the second is in the accusative case":
"In the case of Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws": Sa'd is a vocative from which the yā of the call has been omitted, and the original form is: "O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws". Who is Sa'd of the Aws?
The student: Sa'd ibn Mu'adh.
The Shaykh : Yes, Sa'd of the Khazraj?
The student: Ibn 'Abd al-'Uzza.
The Shaykh : Sa'd ibn 'Abd al-'Uzza, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him). His life is well known, and the conclusion of his life was martyrdom, and the Throne of the Most Merciful (Glorified and Exalted is He) trembled for him. And regarding him, Hassan ibn Thabit said:
"And the Throne of Allah did not tremble for any one who died *** of whom we heard, except for Sa'd, Abu 'Amr".
So if you say: O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws: why is the second in the accusative case?
The student: Because of the position of the case.
The Shaykh : Because it is a vocative that is attached to something, and if it is a substitute for the first, it is a substitute for it as being attached, or an explanatory apposition, so it is in the accusative case because it is attached. But the first, the author says:
: "And the first is either raised or opened, so that you may hit the mark":
Raised or opened: Yes, it means that two options are permissible for the first: the raised case and the opened case. The raised case is according to the original rule because it is not attached, and a proper name when called is built on the raised case, so you say: O Sa'd. This is clear according to the original rule. But if we say that Sa'd is opened: O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws, is that permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, because he said: "The first is either raised or opened".
O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws: So why is it permissible? The grammarians differed on this. Some said: It is permissible on the basis that the second Sa'd is inserted, and the original form is as if: O Sa'd of the Aws, so the second is an inserted extra word. This is according to the opinion of those who permit the addition of nouns. The issue is disputed among grammarians. As for the addition of particles, it is apparent that it is permissible and common, but the addition of nouns...
And some said: It is in the accusative case and built with the second, like the building of "fifteen." So you say in the grammatical analysis according to this opinion: O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws: O is the particle of the call, Sa'd Sa'd is the vocative name built on the opened case in the position of the accusative case because it is attached, like fifteen. Fifteen is built on the opened case. This is two opinions. The third opinion says: We open it on the basis of following, meaning that it follows what comes after it, a movement of following. Yes, a movement of following. And on this basis, we say: Sa'd is a vocative built on a presumed raised case on its end, and following prevented its appearance. In reality, there is no harm in a person practicing these grammatical cases and knowing them, but the most important thing for us is the ruling, which is that the second is described, yes, and the first permits both options: the opened and the raised cases. And it has a witness from the speech of the Arabs, which is the saying of the poet:
"O Zayd, Zayd of the Ya'malāt, the Dhubbal ***":
O Zayd, Zayd of the Ya'malāt, and it is permissible: "O Zayd, Zayd of the Ya'malāt, the Dhubbal". The Ya'malāt means the camels.
"And the first is either raised or opened, so that you may hit the mark".
"In the case of Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws, the second is in the accusative case":
"In the case of Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws": Sa'd is a vocative from which the yā of the call has been omitted, and the original form is: "O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws". Who is Sa'd of the Aws?
The student: Sa'd ibn Mu'adh.
The Shaykh : Yes, Sa'd of the Khazraj?
The student: Ibn 'Abd al-'Uzza.
The Shaykh : Sa'd ibn 'Abd al-'Uzza, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him). His life is well known, and the conclusion of his life was martyrdom, and the Throne of the Most Merciful (Glorified and Exalted is He) trembled for him. And regarding him, Hassan ibn Thabit said:
"And the Throne of Allah did not tremble for any one who died *** of whom we heard, except for Sa'd, Abu 'Amr".
So if you say: O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws: why is the second in the accusative case?
The student: Because of the position of the case.
The Shaykh : Because it is a vocative that is attached to something, and if it is a substitute for the first, it is a substitute for it as being attached, or an explanatory apposition, so it is in the accusative case because it is attached. But the first, the author says:
: "And the first is either raised or opened, so that you may hit the mark":
Raised or opened: Yes, it means that two options are permissible for the first: the raised case and the opened case. The raised case is according to the original rule because it is not attached, and a proper name when called is built on the raised case, so you say: O Sa'd. This is clear according to the original rule. But if we say that Sa'd is opened: O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws, is that permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, because he said: "The first is either raised or opened".
O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws: So why is it permissible? The grammarians differed on this. Some said: It is permissible on the basis that the second Sa'd is inserted, and the original form is as if: O Sa'd of the Aws, so the second is an inserted extra word. This is according to the opinion of those who permit the addition of nouns. The issue is disputed among grammarians. As for the addition of particles, it is apparent that it is permissible and common, but the addition of nouns...
And some said: It is in the accusative case and built with the second, like the building of "fifteen." So you say in the grammatical analysis according to this opinion: O Sa'd, Sa'd of the Aws: O is the particle of the call, Sa'd Sa'd is the vocative name built on the opened case in the position of the accusative case because it is attached, like fifteen. Fifteen is built on the opened case. This is two opinions. The third opinion says: We open it on the basis of following, meaning that it follows what comes after it, a movement of following. Yes, a movement of following. And on this basis, we say: Sa'd is a vocative built on a presumed raised case on its end, and following prevented its appearance. In reality, there is no harm in a person practicing these grammatical cases and knowing them, but the most important thing for us is the ruling, which is that the second is described, yes, and the first permits both options: the opened and the raised cases. And it has a witness from the speech of the Arabs, which is the saying of the poet:
"O Zayd, Zayd of the Ya'malāt, the Dhubbal ***":
O Zayd, Zayd of the Ya'malāt, and it is permissible: "O Zayd, Zayd of the Ya'malāt, the Dhubbal". The Ya'malāt means the camels.
"And the first is either raised or opened, so that you may hit the mark".