Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And the end of the *mandub* is joined with alif *** its following letter, if it is like it, is deleted."

The Shaykh :"And the end of the *mandub* is joined with alif"
Here, the *mandub* also differs from the vocative. It was previously mentioned that it differs in that the indefinite is not recommended, and what else?
The student: And the ambiguous.

The Shaykh : And the ambiguous, except for what is excluded from the ambiguous. Likewise, it differs from the vocative in his statement:
"And the end of the *mandub* is joined with alif"
The end of the *mandub* is joined with alif. So you say: "O Zayd!" A vocative with *ba*, does it respond with alif or not?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : We do not bring alif, and you say: "Wa Zayda" in the *nadbah* (lamentation). You say "Wa Zayda" in the *nadbah*. Did you give with *ba*?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And the author's statement:
"is joined with alif"
This is a command. Is the original ruling for a command obligatory or not?
The student: Yes.
Another student: This is in the Shari'ah, but...

The Shaykh : The original ruling for a command is obligatory, but there is a context that diverts it. So the command here is not for obligation, it is not for obligation as will come later. So "join it" is not obligatory, unless it becomes ambiguous with the vocative such that the tool of *nadbah* becomes *ya*:
"And if it is not joined with *ya*, it becomes ambiguous"
In that case, alif becomes necessary. Alif becomes necessary, otherwise it is not obligatory. Why is it not obligatory? Because the *nadbah* is known by *wa*, the specific letter for it. But if *ya* comes and it would become ambiguous with the vocative if not joined with alif, what is obligatory for us?
The student: To join it.

The Shaykh : To join it. You say "Wa Zayda." Okay, if you pause, yes, if you pause, add the *ha* of *sakt* (pause) as in:
"And if pausing, add the *ha* of *sakt* if desired"
If you pause, add the *ha* of *sakt* as well. So you say "Wa Zaydaha," "Wa Zaydaha," or not?
The student: How...

The Shaykh : Make it silent, because pausing makes it silent, it is known.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : "Wa Zaydaha," "Wa Rasi Rasiha," is it or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It is well known.

The Shaykh : It is known. And you say "Wa Zahri Zahra," this is one who is in pain from it.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : "Wa Zahra," "Wa Rasiha," and the like are for one who is in pain from it. But "Wa Zaydaha" is for one who is lamenting over it, lamenting over it. Like the saying of Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) passed away: "Wa Abtaha" "Wa Abtaha" Yes. So, from the author's words, we benefit that the *mandub* also differs from the vocative in a third matter, which is this?
The student: Joining its end with alif.

The Shaykh : Joining its end with alif:
"And the end of the *mandub* is joined with alif *** its following letter, if it is like it, is deleted"
"its following letter" means the one that was following it. This is its following letter. It is the following one, and the preceding one is the followed one. Meaning: if the alif of *nadbah* is preceded by an alif, if it is like it, how is it like it? Meaning, if it is an alif. He said:
"... join it with alif *** its following letter..."
Meaning: the followed alif, if it is like it, meaning, if it is an alif, it is deleted. If it is like it, it is deleted. Why is it deleted? Because two static letters met: the alif in the original word and the alif of *nadbah*. And when two static letters meet and they are letters of elongation.
The student: One of them is deleted.

The Shaykh : One of them is deleted. Ibn Malik said:
"
"If two static letters meet, break what preceded *** and if it is a letter of elongation, its deletion is deserved"
Okay, here, if someone asks: Why do we not delete the alif of *nadbah* and keep the alif in the original because it is original? We say: No, we delete the first one. We delete the first one, is it or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Because this is the original, and because the alif of *nadbah* was brought for a meaning. So if we deleted it?
The student: It would be lost.

The Shaykh : This meaning would be lost. An example of that is someone who has Musa. Musa, the barber, do you know him?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, he broke or was lost, so he said: "Wa Musaha," or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : "Wa Musaha." The alif with us, is it the alif of Musa or the alif of *nadbah*?
The student: The alif of *nadbah*.

The Shaykh : The alif of *nadbah. Where did the alif of Musa go?
The student: It was deleted.

The Shaykh : It was deleted, because Ibn Malik says:
"its following letter, if it is like it, is deleted"
Okay, if someone asks: Why do we not say "Wa Musaa"? Is it or not?
The student: Two static letters met.

The Shaykh : It is not valid. If two static letters meet, we must delete the first one, or break it if it is not a letter of elongation. So "its following letter": what is its meaning?
The student: The one that comes before it.

The Shaykh : Meaning, what it follows?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Because it is the following one, a name of the active participle, and the one before it is the followed one, a name of the passive participle.
"if it is like it, is deleted"