Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And they attached the one with a defective lam, stripped *** of the two patterns, to what the ta' was attached to."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And they attached the one with a defective lam, stripped *** of the two patterns"
And what are the two patterns? Fa'aylah and Fu'aylah; these are the two patterns.
"To what the ta' was attached to"
That is: attach the one with a defective lam. "Defective lam" means the one whose last letter is a letter of defect. Stripped from what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : From the ta', because Fa'aylah has a ta', and Fu'aylah has a ta'. "Stripped" means: free from the ta', or devoid of the ta'. "Stripped" means devoid of the ta'. They attached it to what the ta' was attached to, meaning: they attached it to what contains the ta'. And the one with a defective lam, if the one with a defective lam is stripped of the ta', it is attached to what contains the ta', and it is attributed to it on the pattern of Fa'ali or?
The student: Fu'ali.
The Shaykh : Here, or Fu'ali. What is its example?
The student: 'Adawi.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: 'Adawi.
The Shaykh : 'Adawi. Its original form is 'Adi ibn Fulan. Do you attribute to him?
The student: 'Adawi.
The Shaykh : 'Adawi. If we wanted to attribute to it based on its form, we would say? 'Adawi, 'Adawi. But we do not use the ya' to attribute to it as Fa'aylah and Fa'alah. For Qusay, do we say Qusawi or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Qusawi, just as we say 'Anazi for 'Anizah. And we also say Qusawi for this. So 'Adi and Qusay are attributed to them, and it is said: 'Adawi like Fa'ali, and it is said: Qusawi like Fa'ali. The first, 'Adi, what is its example here? The example of Fa'aylah. And the second?
The student: Fu'aylah.
The Shaykh : Qusay is on what pattern?
The student: Fu'aylah.
The Shaykh : Fu'aylah. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that what is devoid of the fa' and has a defective lam, its ruling is the ruling of the one joined with the ta'. That is, it is attributed on the pattern of Fa'ali or? Fu'ali. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Qusay.
The Shaykh : Qusay ends with a ya', ... yes, good. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that what is devoid of the ta' and is on this pattern, Fa'ali, Fa'aylah, or Fu'aylah, what is it? It is attached to them. And it is understood from his saying: "defective lam" that if its lam is sound, then it is anomalous. If its lam is sound and it is attributed to it on the pattern of Fu'ali, then it becomes? Anomalous. Yes, for example, Quraysh? It is said Qurashi ... but it is anomalous according to its rule. Why? Because the lam in Quraysh is defective or not defective? Here?
The student: Not defective.
The Shaykh : Is the lam in Quraysh defective, brothers?
The student: Not defective.
The Shaykh : It is not defective; its lam is as sound as it can be ... The important thing is that the lam of Quraysh is sound or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the pattern of Quraysh?
The student: Fu'ayl.
The Shaykh : Fu'ayl. The lam is sound, so the implication of what Ibn Malik said:
"And they attached the one with a defective lam"
is that we say in the attribution to Quraysh what? Qurayshi, -may Allah have mercy on you-, because he did not rule that the one devoid of the ta' is attached to the one with the ta' except if it is?
The student: Defective in the lam.
The Shaykh : Defective in the lam. And based on that, if it is sound in the lam, then it must be attributed to it without change, so we say in the attribution to Quraysh? Qurayshi. Good, Thaqif?
The student: Thaqifi.
The Shaykh : Thaqifi, Thaqifi. Is the lam in Thaqif sound or defective?
The student: Valid.
The Shaykh : Sound. And yet the Arabs say Thaqawi. And the implication of what Ibn Malik established is that we say?
The student: Thaqifi.
The Shaykh : So our saying in the attribution to Thaqif, Thaqawi, would be?
The student: Anomalous.
The Shaykh : It would be anomalous. And to Quraysh, Qurashi, likewise would be anomalous. This is the opinion of Sibawayhi, who said: This is anomalous, so it is memorized here? It is memorized and not used as an analogy. Good, Suhayb?
The student: Suhaybi.
The Shaykh : What do we say for it?
The student: Suhbi.
The Shaykh : No, let us follow the rule.
The student: Suhaybi.
The Shaykh : Suhaybi, and we do not say Suhbi, here, because since it has not been heard, we follow the rule. But some grammarians said that Quraysh and Thaqif and the like, where the Arabs attribute to them on the pattern of Fu'ali with great frequency, indicates that this is analogical and not heard. And on this basis, it would be consistent and not anomalous. So it is permissible for me to attribute to Suhayb as Suhaybi here? And Suhbi, Suhaybi and Suhbi, and there is no objection, because the Arabs say for Quraysh here? Qurashi, and this is consistent with them, and they do not know Qurayshi at all. So we say: Qurashi and Suhbi, and Thaqifi and Harrari. Attribution to what?
The student: Harrarah.
The Shaykh : To Harrarah. Attribution to Harrarah, we say Harrari. As for the attribution to Fard, what do we say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Fardi on its form. But when we attribute to Fari'ah, we say: Fardi. Yes, just as Ibn Malik said:
"And Fa'ali in Fa'ilah, adhere to it"
Then he said:
"And complete what was like al-Tawilah *** And likewise what was like al-Jalilah".
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no ...
And what are the two patterns? Fa'aylah and Fu'aylah; these are the two patterns.
"To what the ta' was attached to"
That is: attach the one with a defective lam. "Defective lam" means the one whose last letter is a letter of defect. Stripped from what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : From the ta', because Fa'aylah has a ta', and Fu'aylah has a ta'. "Stripped" means: free from the ta', or devoid of the ta'. "Stripped" means devoid of the ta'. They attached it to what the ta' was attached to, meaning: they attached it to what contains the ta'. And the one with a defective lam, if the one with a defective lam is stripped of the ta', it is attached to what contains the ta', and it is attributed to it on the pattern of Fa'ali or?
The student: Fu'ali.
The Shaykh : Here, or Fu'ali. What is its example?
The student: 'Adawi.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: 'Adawi.
The Shaykh : 'Adawi. Its original form is 'Adi ibn Fulan. Do you attribute to him?
The student: 'Adawi.
The Shaykh : 'Adawi. If we wanted to attribute to it based on its form, we would say? 'Adawi, 'Adawi. But we do not use the ya' to attribute to it as Fa'aylah and Fa'alah. For Qusay, do we say Qusawi or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Qusawi, just as we say 'Anazi for 'Anizah. And we also say Qusawi for this. So 'Adi and Qusay are attributed to them, and it is said: 'Adawi like Fa'ali, and it is said: Qusawi like Fa'ali. The first, 'Adi, what is its example here? The example of Fa'aylah. And the second?
The student: Fu'aylah.
The Shaykh : Qusay is on what pattern?
The student: Fu'aylah.
The Shaykh : Fu'aylah. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that what is devoid of the fa' and has a defective lam, its ruling is the ruling of the one joined with the ta'. That is, it is attributed on the pattern of Fa'ali or? Fu'ali. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Qusay.
The Shaykh : Qusay ends with a ya', ... yes, good. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that what is devoid of the ta' and is on this pattern, Fa'ali, Fa'aylah, or Fu'aylah, what is it? It is attached to them. And it is understood from his saying: "defective lam" that if its lam is sound, then it is anomalous. If its lam is sound and it is attributed to it on the pattern of Fu'ali, then it becomes? Anomalous. Yes, for example, Quraysh? It is said Qurashi ... but it is anomalous according to its rule. Why? Because the lam in Quraysh is defective or not defective? Here?
The student: Not defective.
The Shaykh : Is the lam in Quraysh defective, brothers?
The student: Not defective.
The Shaykh : It is not defective; its lam is as sound as it can be ... The important thing is that the lam of Quraysh is sound or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the pattern of Quraysh?
The student: Fu'ayl.
The Shaykh : Fu'ayl. The lam is sound, so the implication of what Ibn Malik said:
"And they attached the one with a defective lam"
is that we say in the attribution to Quraysh what? Qurayshi, -may Allah have mercy on you-, because he did not rule that the one devoid of the ta' is attached to the one with the ta' except if it is?
The student: Defective in the lam.
The Shaykh : Defective in the lam. And based on that, if it is sound in the lam, then it must be attributed to it without change, so we say in the attribution to Quraysh? Qurayshi. Good, Thaqif?
The student: Thaqifi.
The Shaykh : Thaqifi, Thaqifi. Is the lam in Thaqif sound or defective?
The student: Valid.
The Shaykh : Sound. And yet the Arabs say Thaqawi. And the implication of what Ibn Malik established is that we say?
The student: Thaqifi.
The Shaykh : So our saying in the attribution to Thaqif, Thaqawi, would be?
The student: Anomalous.
The Shaykh : It would be anomalous. And to Quraysh, Qurashi, likewise would be anomalous. This is the opinion of Sibawayhi, who said: This is anomalous, so it is memorized here? It is memorized and not used as an analogy. Good, Suhayb?
The student: Suhaybi.
The Shaykh : What do we say for it?
The student: Suhbi.
The Shaykh : No, let us follow the rule.
The student: Suhaybi.
The Shaykh : Suhaybi, and we do not say Suhbi, here, because since it has not been heard, we follow the rule. But some grammarians said that Quraysh and Thaqif and the like, where the Arabs attribute to them on the pattern of Fu'ali with great frequency, indicates that this is analogical and not heard. And on this basis, it would be consistent and not anomalous. So it is permissible for me to attribute to Suhayb as Suhaybi here? And Suhbi, Suhaybi and Suhbi, and there is no objection, because the Arabs say for Quraysh here? Qurashi, and this is consistent with them, and they do not know Qurayshi at all. So we say: Qurashi and Suhbi, and Thaqifi and Harrari. Attribution to what?
The student: Harrarah.
The Shaykh : To Harrarah. Attribution to Harrarah, we say Harrari. As for the attribution to Fard, what do we say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Fardi on its form. But when we attribute to Fari'ah, we say: Fardi. Yes, just as Ibn Malik said:
"And Fa'ali in Fa'ilah, adhere to it"
Then he said:
"And complete what was like al-Tawilah *** And likewise what was like al-Jalilah".
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, no ...