Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance that necessitated the generality of the prohibition."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then it said:
"And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance that necessitated the generality of the prohibition"
This is from the chapter of analogy, grammatical analogy, yes. Sarawil is not a plural, but rather what is it?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : It is singular. You say: "I have sarawil on me," and how many do you have on you?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : What? One. So, the Arabic language does not say "sarwal" except in a very rare dialect among the Arabs who say "sarwal," but the famous, well-known eloquent language says "sarawil," what?
The student: A plural.
The Shaykh : No, it is not a plural. Sarawil is singular, but it has a resemblance to a plural. For this reason, he said: "And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance"
A resemblance in terms of meaning, or in terms of the word?
The student: In terms of the word.
The Shaykh : In terms of the word, in terms of the word, but not in terms of meaning. That is to say, the form of the ultimate plural indicates plurality, and sarawil does not indicate plurality, but it resembles it in the word. For this reason, he said:
"And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance that necessitated"
"Necessitated" means: that resemblance, what did it necessitate? The generality of the prohibition. That is to say: it necessitated that sarawil be prohibited from inflection, even though it is not a plural. And at the beginning, he says:
"And be [like] a plural resembling mafa'il"
"And be [like] a plural," so it is as if he (may Allah have mercy on him) raised an objection: if this pattern is not a plural, should I prohibit it? What did he say? He said to it: it has a resemblance to this plural, because it resembles this plural in terms of the word. Sarawil is on the pattern of what?
The student: Fawa'il.
The Shaykh : Fawa'il, on the pattern of fawa'il, yes. So it resembles it in the word, and therefore it necessitated the generality of the prohibition, what? And what is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed...
The student: The original letters?
The Shaykh : The original letters appear to be s-r-w-l. And on this basis, if it is s-r-w-l, there is a consideration that it is not on the pattern of fawa'il, but on the pattern of fa'ailil, because it appears that the waw is an original letter. Even though they say that this word is originally foreign, but it was Arabized, but it was Arabized, yes?
"And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance that necessitated the generality of the prohibition"
This is from the chapter of analogy, grammatical analogy, yes. Sarawil is not a plural, but rather what is it?
The student: Singular.
The Shaykh : It is singular. You say: "I have sarawil on me," and how many do you have on you?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : What? One. So, the Arabic language does not say "sarwal" except in a very rare dialect among the Arabs who say "sarwal," but the famous, well-known eloquent language says "sarawil," what?
The student: A plural.
The Shaykh : No, it is not a plural. Sarawil is singular, but it has a resemblance to a plural. For this reason, he said: "And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance"
A resemblance in terms of meaning, or in terms of the word?
The student: In terms of the word.
The Shaykh : In terms of the word, in terms of the word, but not in terms of meaning. That is to say, the form of the ultimate plural indicates plurality, and sarawil does not indicate plurality, but it resembles it in the word. For this reason, he said:
"And sarawil, by this plural form, *** has a resemblance that necessitated"
"Necessitated" means: that resemblance, what did it necessitate? The generality of the prohibition. That is to say: it necessitated that sarawil be prohibited from inflection, even though it is not a plural. And at the beginning, he says:
"And be [like] a plural resembling mafa'il"
"And be [like] a plural," so it is as if he (may Allah have mercy on him) raised an objection: if this pattern is not a plural, should I prohibit it? What did he say? He said to it: it has a resemblance to this plural, because it resembles this plural in terms of the word. Sarawil is on the pattern of what?
The student: Fawa'il.
The Shaykh : Fawa'il, on the pattern of fawa'il, yes. So it resembles it in the word, and therefore it necessitated the generality of the prohibition, what? And what is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed...
The student: The original letters?
The Shaykh : The original letters appear to be s-r-w-l. And on this basis, if it is s-r-w-l, there is a consideration that it is not on the pattern of fawa'il, but on the pattern of fa'ailil, because it appears that the waw is an original letter. Even though they say that this word is originally foreign, but it was Arabized, but it was Arabized, yes?