Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Iyyaka wa al-shar wa nahwah nasa *** muhaddir bi-ma istitarah wa jab."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author says:
"Iyyaka wa al-shar wa nahwah nasa *** muhaddir bi-ma istitarah wa jab"
up to the end of it. The author says, "Iyyaka wa al-shar, nasa muhaddir." How do we parse this verse? We say, "Iyyaka wa al-shar wa nahwah." Yes, "Iyyaka wa al-shar" is a fronted object for the verb nasa, on the condition that its meaning is the phrase itself. The waw is a conjunction particle, and "nahwah" is conjoined to what?
The student: Iyyaka.
The Shaykh : Iyyaka wa al-shar. And we said "on the condition that its meaning is the phrase" because "Iyyaka wa al-shar" means: this phrase or this construction and its like is nasa muhaddir, meaning: the one who warns makes "Iyyaka wa al-shar" and its like, such as: "Iyyaka wa al-asad" (beware of the lion), "Iyyaka wa al-riba" (beware of usury), "Iyyaka wa al-khana" (beware of lying), "Iyyaka wa al-ghibah" (beware of backbiting), and the like, nasa muhaddir. By what did he make it nasa? By what, meaning: by an operator. So "ma" here is a described indefinite noun. "Istitarah wa jab." He expressed it here with "istitarah" (concealment) by way of leniency, because the intended meaning of "istitarah" here is deletion. And "istitarah," as you know, only occurs in pronouns in their operators. And this which is with us is from the chapter of deletion, not from the chapter of concealment, so it is from the chapter of leniency, or from the chapter of using "istitarah" in other than its technical meaning, but in its linguistic meaning. It is intended by "bi-ma istitarah wa jab" to mean "by what it was obligatory to hide or conceal." How is that? Meaning, how do we parse "Iyyaka wa al-shar"? They say: "Iyyaka" is the object of a deleted verb, its estimation is "ahdharuka" (I warn you). "Ahdharuka" is the original. The original is "ahdharuka." Is the pronoun in "ahdharuka" attached or detached? Huh?
The student: Attached.
The Shaykh : Attached. When we deleted the verb, we did not find anything for the pronoun to attach to, so we were compelled to detach the pronoun and we said "Iyyaka." And we said "Iyyaka." So on this, "Iyya" is a detached pronoun, built on sukun, in the position of accusative by a deleted operator, the estimation being "ahdhar" (I warn), and not "ihdar" (beware), even though the apparent wording of the explainer is "ihdar," but the correct one is "ahdhar." And his saying: "wa al-asad" (and the lion), the waw is a conjunction particle, "al-asad" is the object of a deleted verb as well, and it is not conjoined to "Iyyaka," because if we said it was conjoined to "Iyyaka," the meaning would be corrupted. If we said it was conjoined to "Iyyaka," the meaning would become "I warn you and I warn the lion," and this does not hold. So it is the object of a deleted verb. What is the estimation?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "Iyyaka ahdhar wa janib al-asad" (I warn you and avoid the lion), or "janib al-asad" or "wajtanib al-asad" (and avoid the lion). So here it is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. This is the parsing of this sentence "Iyyaka wa al-asad." And his saying: "bi-ma istitarah wa jab" (by what it was obligatory to conceal)
indicates that it is not permissible to make the verb explicit here. If you said "Iyyaka ahdhar," it would not be from the chapter of warning, but rather it would be an independent sentence and not called a warning. And "Iyyaka wa al-shar" is called a warning with the deletion of the operator, because this is more eloquent in alerting the addressee. If he said "I warn you," it would not have the same effect on the addressee's mind as his saying "Iyyaka" does, especially in the second form that will come, "Iyyaka Iyyaka," which contains repetition. Then the author said, "Do you understand now its parsing, 'Iyyaka wa al-shar'?" On the condition that "Iyyaka" is the object of a deleted verb, the estimation being "ahdhar," and what is after the waw is the object of a deleted verb, the estimation being "ijtanib" (avoid) or "janib" (avoid) or the like.
"Iyyaka wa al-shar wa nahwah nasa *** muhaddir bi-ma istitarah wa jab"
up to the end of it. The author says, "Iyyaka wa al-shar, nasa muhaddir." How do we parse this verse? We say, "Iyyaka wa al-shar wa nahwah." Yes, "Iyyaka wa al-shar" is a fronted object for the verb nasa, on the condition that its meaning is the phrase itself. The waw is a conjunction particle, and "nahwah" is conjoined to what?
The student: Iyyaka.
The Shaykh : Iyyaka wa al-shar. And we said "on the condition that its meaning is the phrase" because "Iyyaka wa al-shar" means: this phrase or this construction and its like is nasa muhaddir, meaning: the one who warns makes "Iyyaka wa al-shar" and its like, such as: "Iyyaka wa al-asad" (beware of the lion), "Iyyaka wa al-riba" (beware of usury), "Iyyaka wa al-khana" (beware of lying), "Iyyaka wa al-ghibah" (beware of backbiting), and the like, nasa muhaddir. By what did he make it nasa? By what, meaning: by an operator. So "ma" here is a described indefinite noun. "Istitarah wa jab." He expressed it here with "istitarah" (concealment) by way of leniency, because the intended meaning of "istitarah" here is deletion. And "istitarah," as you know, only occurs in pronouns in their operators. And this which is with us is from the chapter of deletion, not from the chapter of concealment, so it is from the chapter of leniency, or from the chapter of using "istitarah" in other than its technical meaning, but in its linguistic meaning. It is intended by "bi-ma istitarah wa jab" to mean "by what it was obligatory to hide or conceal." How is that? Meaning, how do we parse "Iyyaka wa al-shar"? They say: "Iyyaka" is the object of a deleted verb, its estimation is "ahdharuka" (I warn you). "Ahdharuka" is the original. The original is "ahdharuka." Is the pronoun in "ahdharuka" attached or detached? Huh?
The student: Attached.
The Shaykh : Attached. When we deleted the verb, we did not find anything for the pronoun to attach to, so we were compelled to detach the pronoun and we said "Iyyaka." And we said "Iyyaka." So on this, "Iyya" is a detached pronoun, built on sukun, in the position of accusative by a deleted operator, the estimation being "ahdhar" (I warn), and not "ihdar" (beware), even though the apparent wording of the explainer is "ihdar," but the correct one is "ahdhar." And his saying: "wa al-asad" (and the lion), the waw is a conjunction particle, "al-asad" is the object of a deleted verb as well, and it is not conjoined to "Iyyaka," because if we said it was conjoined to "Iyyaka," the meaning would be corrupted. If we said it was conjoined to "Iyyaka," the meaning would become "I warn you and I warn the lion," and this does not hold. So it is the object of a deleted verb. What is the estimation?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "Iyyaka ahdhar wa janib al-asad" (I warn you and avoid the lion), or "janib al-asad" or "wajtanib al-asad" (and avoid the lion). So here it is the conjunction of a sentence to a sentence. This is the parsing of this sentence "Iyyaka wa al-asad." And his saying: "bi-ma istitarah wa jab" (by what it was obligatory to conceal)
indicates that it is not permissible to make the verb explicit here. If you said "Iyyaka ahdhar," it would not be from the chapter of warning, but rather it would be an independent sentence and not called a warning. And "Iyyaka wa al-shar" is called a warning with the deletion of the operator, because this is more eloquent in alerting the addressee. If he said "I warn you," it would not have the same effect on the addressee's mind as his saying "Iyyaka" does, especially in the second form that will come, "Iyyaka Iyyaka," which contains repetition. Then the author said, "Do you understand now its parsing, 'Iyyaka wa al-shar'?" On the condition that "Iyyaka" is the object of a deleted verb, the estimation being "ahdhar," and what is after the waw is the object of a deleted verb, the estimation being "ijtanib" (avoid) or "janib" (avoid) or the like.