Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And other than what I have previously established *** upon which it is transferred, restrict yourself"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And other than what I have previously established *** upon which it is transferred, restrict yourself"
When he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the rules, and the Arabs are the judges in these chapters, what is the alternative? He says, "What do we have except to submit?" So, regarding what contradicts the rules I have mentioned, we restrict ourselves to hearing it, and we do not apply analogy to it, or is that not the case?
The student: It is not subject to analogy.
The Shaykh : It is not subject to analogy, and for this reason he said:
"upon which it is transferred, restrict yourself"
It is not subject to analogy, for example? 'Abd Shams, it was supposed that we would say?
The student: Shamsi.
The Shaykh : Shamsi, but they said 'Abd Shami, and 'Abd al-Dar, instead of saying Dari, they said 'Abdari. What do we do in this case? Do we say, "O noble, eloquent Arabs, you have erred in speaking in a way that contradicts our scales and our analogies," is that correct?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : What do we say? We do not say this. If we said this, they would say, "And you are a burden on us, and the only reason you established these principles and formulated these rules was to reach the pronunciation of our language. How can you accuse us of error?" Therefore, we are the judges and you are the judged. So, whatever of our speech proceeds in accordance with your analogy, praise Allah and let it proceed. And whatever comes in contradiction to our analogy, we have the word that is not contradicted. Is that clear? Therefore, he says:
"upon which it is transferred, restrict yourself"
We no longer apply analogy to it, but we submit to it, and with this, the chapter on stopping (waqf) is concluded.
The student: The chapter on kinship (nasab).
The Shaykh : The chapter on kinship, the chapter on kinship, yes. Let us pause on this issue because I would like to distribute the rules of kinship to something among each group of you. For example, to one group we say: "Mention the rules of kinship to the alif of the incomplete noun (manqus), the alif of the truncated noun (maqsur), the elongated alif of femininity, and the truncated alif of femininity." And to another group we say: "Mention the rules of kinship to the doubled yaa at the end, the doubled yaa in the middle." Yes, and we proceed in this manner, or is that not possible? Hmm?
The student: It is possible.
The Shaykh : Is it possible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, good, let us read the explanation now.
When he (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the rules, and the Arabs are the judges in these chapters, what is the alternative? He says, "What do we have except to submit?" So, regarding what contradicts the rules I have mentioned, we restrict ourselves to hearing it, and we do not apply analogy to it, or is that not the case?
The student: It is not subject to analogy.
The Shaykh : It is not subject to analogy, and for this reason he said:
"upon which it is transferred, restrict yourself"
It is not subject to analogy, for example? 'Abd Shams, it was supposed that we would say?
The student: Shamsi.
The Shaykh : Shamsi, but they said 'Abd Shami, and 'Abd al-Dar, instead of saying Dari, they said 'Abdari. What do we do in this case? Do we say, "O noble, eloquent Arabs, you have erred in speaking in a way that contradicts our scales and our analogies," is that correct?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : What do we say? We do not say this. If we said this, they would say, "And you are a burden on us, and the only reason you established these principles and formulated these rules was to reach the pronunciation of our language. How can you accuse us of error?" Therefore, we are the judges and you are the judged. So, whatever of our speech proceeds in accordance with your analogy, praise Allah and let it proceed. And whatever comes in contradiction to our analogy, we have the word that is not contradicted. Is that clear? Therefore, he says:
"upon which it is transferred, restrict yourself"
We no longer apply analogy to it, but we submit to it, and with this, the chapter on stopping (waqf) is concluded.
The student: The chapter on kinship (nasab).
The Shaykh : The chapter on kinship, the chapter on kinship, yes. Let us pause on this issue because I would like to distribute the rules of kinship to something among each group of you. For example, to one group we say: "Mention the rules of kinship to the alif of the incomplete noun (manqus), the alif of the truncated noun (maqsur), the elongated alif of femininity, and the truncated alif of femininity." And to another group we say: "Mention the rules of kinship to the doubled yaa at the end, the doubled yaa in the middle." Yes, and we proceed in this manner, or is that not possible? Hmm?
The student: It is possible.
The Shaykh : Is it possible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, good, let us read the explanation now.