Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And in the cursing of males, the form Fu'ul became common *** And do not analogize, and in poetry, Ful was declined."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And in the cursing of males, the form Fu'ul became common":
In the Arabic language, the form Fu'ul became common in the cursing of males, whereas for the female, the form Fa'ali is consistent in her cursing. Praise be to Allah, the female is more numerous than us as well. For males, we only take what has come in the language, what has become common. And for the female?
The student: It is consistent.
The Shaykh : It is consistent; it is consistent that the form Fa'ali is derived for her from her cursing. As for males, he said:
"And in the cursing of males, the form Fu'ul became common *** And do not analogize":
Do not analogize. So, we restrict ourselves to what?
The student: To what is heard.
The Shaykh : To what is heard. So, whatever is found in this form in what is heard, we take it. As for deriving it from our own minds, that is not possible. It is not possible to say in the cursing of males: "Ya Fujar," it is not possible to say Fujar, nor "Ya Fusaq." Why? Because it has not been reported. The matter is contingent upon it being reported from the Arabs. Luk' was reported in it, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Luk', Ibn Luk' means it is a curse for him, a word that expresses cursing. But we want to analogize; we cannot analogize. A person who is negligent in the lesson, you often say: "Ya Ghufal, pay attention," right?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : That is not valid. Okay, a female student is negligent, what do we say to her?
The student: Ya Ghafal.
The Shaykh : Ya Ghafali, pay attention, because it is valid, it is consistent. As for this one, it is heard.
"And do not analogize": So, it resembles in jurisprudential matters the things restricted to what is heard in the Arabic language. It resembles in jurisprudential matters what they call: the devotional (ta'abbudi), and what is analogized upon.
"And Ful was declined in poetry": Is "jurra" a past tense verb or an imperative verb?
The student: A past tense verb.
Another student: An imperative verb.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Past, past.
Another student: For the past and the imperative.
The Shaykh : Okay, "jur," "jur" is valid for the imperative, yes, and it is valid for other than the imperative if the matter is analogical. "Jarr" is an imperative verb; if the matter is analogical, then whenever "ful" comes in poetry, you may enter a preposition upon it, so: "jur" is an imperative verb. And if the matter is based on what is heard, then: "jur" is a past tense verb, meaning the Arabs declined it. And this latter is the most probable, that: "jurra" is a past tense verb in the passive voice. "And Ful was declined in poetry" means it was reported as declined in poetry, although it is restricted to what?
The student: To the vocative.
The Shaykh : To the vocative, but it occurs in the Arabic language as declined. Do you have the verse in the explanation?
The student: Yes, it says: "My camels remain with the hawajil".
The Shaykh : With the hawajil.
The student: "With the hawajil *** In a whirlpool, so-and-so held back from Ful".
The Shaykh : Yes, the point is his saying: "so-and-so held back from Ful", meaning from a man among men. And this verse, in reality, supports the saying of those who said it is derived from "fulan," meaning so-and-so held back from so-and-so. But if it were "from fulan," he would have said: "from fula," it would have remained open.
The student: The same truncation, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Truncation has two forms, and truncation does not occur except in the vocative as well. In other than that, it only comes as anomalous.
Okay, so the summary of the verses now is: that Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned to us three rules. The first rule: that some names are restricted to the vocative only, they do not come other than as a vocative. What are they? Ful, Fula, Lu'aman, Numan.
Second: that it is permissible consistently to derive a name for the cursing of the female from where?
The student: Fa'ali.
The Shaykh : On the pattern of Fa'ali, such as Lak'ah, and Fajar, and Ghafal, and so on, it is known.
The third thing, or perhaps four or five. The third thing: that an imperative verb is derived from the triliteral verb on the pattern of what? On the pattern of Fa'al, like Nazali, and what else?
The student: Daraki.
The Shaykh : And Daraki, meaning "catch up," and Taraki: meaning "leave."
Okay, the fourth matter: that in the cursing of males, it is said: Fu'ul, but it is based on what is heard, not analogical.
And the fifth matter: that Ful was heard in poetry in the state of being declined, other than as a vocative, which is the saying of the poet: "so-and-so held back from Ful", yes.
In the Arabic language, the form Fu'ul became common in the cursing of males, whereas for the female, the form Fa'ali is consistent in her cursing. Praise be to Allah, the female is more numerous than us as well. For males, we only take what has come in the language, what has become common. And for the female?
The student: It is consistent.
The Shaykh : It is consistent; it is consistent that the form Fa'ali is derived for her from her cursing. As for males, he said:
"And in the cursing of males, the form Fu'ul became common *** And do not analogize":
Do not analogize. So, we restrict ourselves to what?
The student: To what is heard.
The Shaykh : To what is heard. So, whatever is found in this form in what is heard, we take it. As for deriving it from our own minds, that is not possible. It is not possible to say in the cursing of males: "Ya Fujar," it is not possible to say Fujar, nor "Ya Fusaq." Why? Because it has not been reported. The matter is contingent upon it being reported from the Arabs. Luk' was reported in it, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Luk', Ibn Luk' means it is a curse for him, a word that expresses cursing. But we want to analogize; we cannot analogize. A person who is negligent in the lesson, you often say: "Ya Ghufal, pay attention," right?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : That is not valid. Okay, a female student is negligent, what do we say to her?
The student: Ya Ghafal.
The Shaykh : Ya Ghafali, pay attention, because it is valid, it is consistent. As for this one, it is heard.
"And do not analogize": So, it resembles in jurisprudential matters the things restricted to what is heard in the Arabic language. It resembles in jurisprudential matters what they call: the devotional (ta'abbudi), and what is analogized upon.
"And Ful was declined in poetry": Is "jurra" a past tense verb or an imperative verb?
The student: A past tense verb.
Another student: An imperative verb.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Past, past.
Another student: For the past and the imperative.
The Shaykh : Okay, "jur," "jur" is valid for the imperative, yes, and it is valid for other than the imperative if the matter is analogical. "Jarr" is an imperative verb; if the matter is analogical, then whenever "ful" comes in poetry, you may enter a preposition upon it, so: "jur" is an imperative verb. And if the matter is based on what is heard, then: "jur" is a past tense verb, meaning the Arabs declined it. And this latter is the most probable, that: "jurra" is a past tense verb in the passive voice. "And Ful was declined in poetry" means it was reported as declined in poetry, although it is restricted to what?
The student: To the vocative.
The Shaykh : To the vocative, but it occurs in the Arabic language as declined. Do you have the verse in the explanation?
The student: Yes, it says: "My camels remain with the hawajil".
The Shaykh : With the hawajil.
The student: "With the hawajil *** In a whirlpool, so-and-so held back from Ful".
The Shaykh : Yes, the point is his saying: "so-and-so held back from Ful", meaning from a man among men. And this verse, in reality, supports the saying of those who said it is derived from "fulan," meaning so-and-so held back from so-and-so. But if it were "from fulan," he would have said: "from fula," it would have remained open.
The student: The same truncation, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Truncation has two forms, and truncation does not occur except in the vocative as well. In other than that, it only comes as anomalous.
Okay, so the summary of the verses now is: that Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned to us three rules. The first rule: that some names are restricted to the vocative only, they do not come other than as a vocative. What are they? Ful, Fula, Lu'aman, Numan.
Second: that it is permissible consistently to derive a name for the cursing of the female from where?
The student: Fa'ali.
The Shaykh : On the pattern of Fa'ali, such as Lak'ah, and Fajar, and Ghafal, and so on, it is known.
The third thing, or perhaps four or five. The third thing: that an imperative verb is derived from the triliteral verb on the pattern of what? On the pattern of Fa'al, like Nazali, and what else?
The student: Daraki.
The Shaykh : And Daraki, meaning "catch up," and Taraki: meaning "leave."
Okay, the fourth matter: that in the cursing of males, it is said: Fu'ul, but it is based on what is heard, not analogical.
And the fifth matter: that Ful was heard in poetry in the state of being declined, other than as a vocative, which is the saying of the poet: "so-and-so held back from Ful", yes.