Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): ... And for the second, they completed: An addition beginning with Ibn or Ab *** Or that which requires definition by the second.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And for the second, they completed an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab"
"And for the second" means: and attribute to the second, if it completes an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab. What is the compound that is compounded by addition? We attribute to its end, to the second. What is an example?
The student: Ibn Malik.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Ibn Malik.
The Shaykh : Yes, for example, Ibn Malik. Do we say this is my son, Malik? Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And we do not say this is my son either, but we say this is Malik, this is Malik. But our problem is that if we say this is Malik, the addressee might think it is an attribution to whom?
The student: Malik.
The Shaykh : To Malik, to Malik... not to Ibn Malik. So what is the answer to this problem? The answer is that the context specifies the intended meaning, as is the case in many issues. Okay, another example?
The student: Ibn al-Zubayr.
The Shaykh : Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. We do not say Abdullah, Ibn al-Zubayr. We say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Zubayri. The problem we mentioned before arises: to whom is it an attribution?
The student: To al-Zubayr.
The Shaykh : To al-Zubayr. What do we say for Ibn Umar?
The student: Ummari.
The Shaykh : Ummari. But it is problematic. This problem is resolved by the context, which clarifies the intended meaning. Okay, so:
"And for the second, they completed an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab"
Or Ab. What is its original form?
The student: A hamza of separation.
The Shaykh : Or Ab is a hamza of separation, but due to the necessity of poetry, the fatha was moved from the hamza to the waw, so the waw became moving and the hamza remained static and was deleted. That is, it took on the ruling of a hamza of connection, becoming Aw Ab. Why?
The student: For the sake of necessity.
The Shaykh : Due to necessity. And necessity in poetry, as al-Hariri (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Malha, he says that it is?
The student: Rude.
The Shaykh : Rude. He described it as rude, forcing a person to...
"And it is permissible in the making of poetry to be rude *** That the poet lowers what does not decline"
Okay, and what is an example of Ab?
The student: Abu Bakr.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Abu Bakr.
The Shaykh : Abu Bakr. What do we say regarding the attribution to him?
The student: Bakri.
The Shaykh : Bakri. Okay, someone might say Bakri and say he is attributed to Bakr? We say?
The student: The context.
The Shaykh : The context specifies it. The context specifies it. Okay, and is it the same for one attributed to Umm? Huh?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The author did not mention it, but we say it is the same. We mean that every name, every name with a kunya, is attributed to its end. It passed us in knowledge that a name comes with a laqab, huh? And a kunya, and that a kunya is not prefixed with Ibn or Ab or Umm or the like. And based on this, what is added to Umm is also attributed to its end, to the second. What is an example?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, this is Ibn.
The student: Umm Salama.
The Shaykh : Umm Salama. We say?
The student: Salami.
The Shaykh : We say: Salami. We do not say: Ummi or Ummi Salami. We say: Salami.
The student: Is it taken from Salama?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Is it taken from Salama?
The Shaykh : No, no, it is an attribution to Salama...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, this is well known. This man is attributed to whom? Is it to Bakr or to Abu Bakr?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Who is this man? So-and-so ibn So-and-so al-Bakri. We look to see if... or is he from the tribe of Bakr? Okay, he says:
"Or that which requires definition by the second"
Meaning: and attribute to the second. Yes:
"An addition beginning with Ibn or Ab *** Or that which"
Or that which is defined by the second. It is required to be defined by the second. Meaning: beginning with a name that has become definite because of the addition. Meaning: it has become definite because of the addition. For example? The boy of Zayd. If you want to attribute to him, you say? Zaydi. But the original "the boy of Zayd" is not a proper name unless it is a proper name by what? By prevalence. Therefore... it is not absolute. If he means "the boy of Zayd" as a boy common among boys, it is not attributed to its end. And if he means "the boy of Zayd" as a proper name by prevalence such that "the boy of Zayd" is understood to mean only this specific man, then "Ibn Umar" is not understood to mean?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Abdullah. So this is also attributed to its end. And we say regarding the attribution to "the boy of Zayd," huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Zaydi. We do not say: Ghulami. But if "the boy of Zayd" is common among his boys, it is attributed to its beginning, and it is said: Ghulami, because the intended meaning is the boy himself, not the attribution to his master, who is Zayd. Okay, if the first is not defined by the second, because he said:
"Or that which requires definition by the second"
If definition by the second is not required, because the second is also indefinite.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: For the first one.
The Shaykh : Then it is attributed to the first. What is an example? The boy of a man. The boy of a man. Is "boy" here definite or indefinite?
The student: Indefinite.
The Shaykh : The boy of a man is indefinite?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Added to an indefinite.
The Shaykh : Added to an indefinite, and what is added to an indefinite is indefinite. When we attribute to "man," we say Ghulami because it is not definite now. But "the boy of the man," we say?
The student: Rajali.
The Shaykh : Huh? Rajali. This is if it is a proper name by prevalence. He says:
"Or that which requires definition by the second".
"And for the second" means: and attribute to the second, if it completes an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab. What is the compound that is compounded by addition? We attribute to its end, to the second. What is an example?
The student: Ibn Malik.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Ibn Malik.
The Shaykh : Yes, for example, Ibn Malik. Do we say this is my son, Malik? Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And we do not say this is my son either, but we say this is Malik, this is Malik. But our problem is that if we say this is Malik, the addressee might think it is an attribution to whom?
The student: Malik.
The Shaykh : To Malik, to Malik... not to Ibn Malik. So what is the answer to this problem? The answer is that the context specifies the intended meaning, as is the case in many issues. Okay, another example?
The student: Ibn al-Zubayr.
The Shaykh : Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. We do not say Abdullah, Ibn al-Zubayr. We say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Zubayri. The problem we mentioned before arises: to whom is it an attribution?
The student: To al-Zubayr.
The Shaykh : To al-Zubayr. What do we say for Ibn Umar?
The student: Ummari.
The Shaykh : Ummari. But it is problematic. This problem is resolved by the context, which clarifies the intended meaning. Okay, so:
"And for the second, they completed an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab"
Or Ab. What is its original form?
The student: A hamza of separation.
The Shaykh : Or Ab is a hamza of separation, but due to the necessity of poetry, the fatha was moved from the hamza to the waw, so the waw became moving and the hamza remained static and was deleted. That is, it took on the ruling of a hamza of connection, becoming Aw Ab. Why?
The student: For the sake of necessity.
The Shaykh : Due to necessity. And necessity in poetry, as al-Hariri (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Malha, he says that it is?
The student: Rude.
The Shaykh : Rude. He described it as rude, forcing a person to...
"And it is permissible in the making of poetry to be rude *** That the poet lowers what does not decline"
Okay, and what is an example of Ab?
The student: Abu Bakr.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Abu Bakr.
The Shaykh : Abu Bakr. What do we say regarding the attribution to him?
The student: Bakri.
The Shaykh : Bakri. Okay, someone might say Bakri and say he is attributed to Bakr? We say?
The student: The context.
The Shaykh : The context specifies it. The context specifies it. Okay, and is it the same for one attributed to Umm? Huh?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The author did not mention it, but we say it is the same. We mean that every name, every name with a kunya, is attributed to its end. It passed us in knowledge that a name comes with a laqab, huh? And a kunya, and that a kunya is not prefixed with Ibn or Ab or Umm or the like. And based on this, what is added to Umm is also attributed to its end, to the second. What is an example?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, this is Ibn.
The student: Umm Salama.
The Shaykh : Umm Salama. We say?
The student: Salami.
The Shaykh : We say: Salami. We do not say: Ummi or Ummi Salami. We say: Salami.
The student: Is it taken from Salama?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Is it taken from Salama?
The Shaykh : No, no, it is an attribution to Salama...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, this is well known. This man is attributed to whom? Is it to Bakr or to Abu Bakr?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Who is this man? So-and-so ibn So-and-so al-Bakri. We look to see if... or is he from the tribe of Bakr? Okay, he says:
"Or that which requires definition by the second"
Meaning: and attribute to the second. Yes:
"An addition beginning with Ibn or Ab *** Or that which"
Or that which is defined by the second. It is required to be defined by the second. Meaning: beginning with a name that has become definite because of the addition. Meaning: it has become definite because of the addition. For example? The boy of Zayd. If you want to attribute to him, you say? Zaydi. But the original "the boy of Zayd" is not a proper name unless it is a proper name by what? By prevalence. Therefore... it is not absolute. If he means "the boy of Zayd" as a boy common among boys, it is not attributed to its end. And if he means "the boy of Zayd" as a proper name by prevalence such that "the boy of Zayd" is understood to mean only this specific man, then "Ibn Umar" is not understood to mean?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Abdullah. So this is also attributed to its end. And we say regarding the attribution to "the boy of Zayd," huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Zaydi. We do not say: Ghulami. But if "the boy of Zayd" is common among his boys, it is attributed to its beginning, and it is said: Ghulami, because the intended meaning is the boy himself, not the attribution to his master, who is Zayd. Okay, if the first is not defined by the second, because he said:
"Or that which requires definition by the second"
If definition by the second is not required, because the second is also indefinite.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: For the first one.
The Shaykh : Then it is attributed to the first. What is an example? The boy of a man. The boy of a man. Is "boy" here definite or indefinite?
The student: Indefinite.
The Shaykh : The boy of a man is indefinite?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Added to an indefinite.
The Shaykh : Added to an indefinite, and what is added to an indefinite is indefinite. When we attribute to "man," we say Ghulami because it is not definite now. But "the boy of the man," we say?
The student: Rajali.
The Shaykh : Huh? Rajali. This is if it is a proper name by prevalence. He says:
"Or that which requires definition by the second".