Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And with a brother, a sister, and with a son, a daughter *** attach, and Yunus refused the deletion of the ta."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Beginning of today's lesson:
"And with a brother, a sister, and with a son, a daughter *** attach"
Now, "with a brother" is connected to the word "attach," and "a sister" is the object of "attach," meaning: attach a sister and a daughter to a brother and a son—put down your pens—when you attribute to a brother, what do you say?
The student: My brother's.
The Shaykh : My brother's, and when you attribute to a son?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : You say: my son's, or if you delete the hamza, what do you say? My son's. When you attribute to a sister, Ibn Malik says "with a brother, a sister, attach," meaning: attach a sister to a brother, and you say in the attribution to her: my brother's...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: By the context.
The Shaykh : It is known by the context, because when... several issues have passed us where there is ambiguity, but they do not care about the ambiguity because they see that the context is what specifies it. Now, a son and a daughter, when we delete the hamza of "son" and attribute to it, what do we say? My son's, and what do we say for a daughter?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : My son's as well, and "with a son, a daughter, attach."
"And Yunus refused the deletion of the ta"
... but we say that the verse requires that... Yunus refused the deletion of the ta. He says: it is not possible to delete the ta of "daughter" and "sister" to their forms without deletion, so we say for "sister": my sister's with the ta, but we double the ya so that the one who thinks does not think that we attached it to the ya of the speaker, and we say for "daughter" here? My daughter's, my daughter's, which is more correct? The more correct is the saying of Yunus, because if we take it, what is removed from us?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The ambiguity, the ambiguity is removed from us, and the whole issue is based on independent legal reasoning, there is nothing heard from the Arabs, it is all based on independent legal reasoning, the majority with the nun, so he says: attribute to their form, you say: my sister's and my daughter's, did you understand? There is one who sees a third opinion, he says: attribute to the form with the deletion of the ta, attribute to the form with the deletion of the ta, so you say for "sister": my brother's, and for "daughter"?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : My son's, my son's, he says: we delete the ta because it is deleted in the plural, it is said: daughters, and it is not said: daughters (with the ta), and it is said: sisters, and it is not said: sisters (with the ta), so since it is deleted in the plural, we delete it in the attribution, but we keep the form as it is so that it is confused in the attribution to a brother and a son, to my brother and my son, so in the attribution there are three opinions: one opinion: that we treat a sister and a daughter like a brother and a son, a second opinion: that we attribute to them by their form without deletion, and the third opinion to their form? With deletion, and does Ghanim agree or not? We keep the form as it is for the sake of the ambiguity... heard from the Arabs... yes, unlike "hand" and "blood" regarding hand, some grammarians say "hand" but Sibawayhi, and it is also heard, says: open it, you say: hand's and blood's, and this is what is heard from the Arabs, and since it is what is heard... but here I see, and knowledge is with Allah the Exalted, that if you attribute to the form without change, it is more correct, so you say my sister's here?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : And my daughter's, now he says.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Son...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : On... so we say for it: my son's.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, son... you say my son's...
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, they say that it is analogized to my son's... my son's, its hamza is deleted and it is said: my son's.
"And with a brother, a sister, and with a son, a daughter *** attach"
Now, "with a brother" is connected to the word "attach," and "a sister" is the object of "attach," meaning: attach a sister and a daughter to a brother and a son—put down your pens—when you attribute to a brother, what do you say?
The student: My brother's.
The Shaykh : My brother's, and when you attribute to a son?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : You say: my son's, or if you delete the hamza, what do you say? My son's. When you attribute to a sister, Ibn Malik says "with a brother, a sister, attach," meaning: attach a sister to a brother, and you say in the attribution to her: my brother's...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: By the context.
The Shaykh : It is known by the context, because when... several issues have passed us where there is ambiguity, but they do not care about the ambiguity because they see that the context is what specifies it. Now, a son and a daughter, when we delete the hamza of "son" and attribute to it, what do we say? My son's, and what do we say for a daughter?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : My son's as well, and "with a son, a daughter, attach."
"And Yunus refused the deletion of the ta"
... but we say that the verse requires that... Yunus refused the deletion of the ta. He says: it is not possible to delete the ta of "daughter" and "sister" to their forms without deletion, so we say for "sister": my sister's with the ta, but we double the ya so that the one who thinks does not think that we attached it to the ya of the speaker, and we say for "daughter" here? My daughter's, my daughter's, which is more correct? The more correct is the saying of Yunus, because if we take it, what is removed from us?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The ambiguity, the ambiguity is removed from us, and the whole issue is based on independent legal reasoning, there is nothing heard from the Arabs, it is all based on independent legal reasoning, the majority with the nun, so he says: attribute to their form, you say: my sister's and my daughter's, did you understand? There is one who sees a third opinion, he says: attribute to the form with the deletion of the ta, attribute to the form with the deletion of the ta, so you say for "sister": my brother's, and for "daughter"?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : My son's, my son's, he says: we delete the ta because it is deleted in the plural, it is said: daughters, and it is not said: daughters (with the ta), and it is said: sisters, and it is not said: sisters (with the ta), so since it is deleted in the plural, we delete it in the attribution, but we keep the form as it is so that it is confused in the attribution to a brother and a son, to my brother and my son, so in the attribution there are three opinions: one opinion: that we treat a sister and a daughter like a brother and a son, a second opinion: that we attribute to them by their form without deletion, and the third opinion to their form? With deletion, and does Ghanim agree or not? We keep the form as it is for the sake of the ambiguity... heard from the Arabs... yes, unlike "hand" and "blood" regarding hand, some grammarians say "hand" but Sibawayhi, and it is also heard, says: open it, you say: hand's and blood's, and this is what is heard from the Arabs, and since it is what is heard... but here I see, and knowledge is with Allah the Exalted, that if you attribute to the form without change, it is more correct, so you say my sister's here?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: My son's.
The Shaykh : And my daughter's, now he says.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Son...
The Shaykh : What?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : On... so we say for it: my son's.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, son... you say my son's...
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, they say that it is analogized to my son's... my son's, its hamza is deleted and it is said: my son's.