بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين, أما بعد
TOPIC: Clarifying the first issue: the mu`tallul-`ayn
أَقوم changes to أَقام (Aqwama changes to Aqaama)- And though Ustaadh said that we would take this as a samaa`, after going back to the resources he found that there is an actual principle for these types of words which says that:
If the `aynul-kalimah was a yaa’ or a waaw and it was preceded by a saakin (silent letter) it is then mandatory to move the harakah to the saakin.
But because it is not as it should be (regarding if the waaw had a fathah) then it has certain conditions- but to go through each condition and shed light on it would take much time and this is not the appropriate time (beginner levels) to do that.
This principle is followed generally with conditions. One of those conditions is that laamul-kalimah is not a harf ‘illah as well.
So why did they do the same with aqwama here – moved the harakah from the waaw to the qaaf? Ash-Shaatibiyy (الشاطبي)- a well known scholar from the 700’s – said they did that so that every verb in this case follows one single pattern – just as it is in the thulaathiyy .
For example: قَامَ (qaama) was originally قَوَمَ (qawama) and بَاعَ (baa`a) which was originally بَيَعَ (baya`a) – in these two examples we turned the aynul-kalimah (the waaw in qawama and the yaa in baya`a) into an alif. So just as in the thulaathiyy, where the `aynul-kalimah if it is a waaw or yaa – i is turned into an alif because the 3 letter verb the waaw or the yaa is turned into an alif – they wanted the rest of the verbs which had a harf `illah in its ayn to follow the same pattern. The three letter verb (fa`ala, fa`ila, fa`ula). So in either of the three cases the faa’ul-kalimah always has a fathah and the `aynul-kalimah is always vowelled and if the aynul kalimah is a waaw or a yaa ten it has met the conditions for the principle to be applied, the principle being: Whenever a waaw or yaa has a harakah and the letter before it has a fathah then the waaw or yaa’ is turned into an alif.
In all different forms of the three letter maadhee this principle is followed. We always see an alif in the middle and never a waaw or yaa because every `ayn which is a waaw or a yaa’ has a harakah in this case and the letter before it has a fathah so the waaw or yaa is always turned into an alif.
So they moved the harakah of the waaw in the four letter verb to the letter before it which was saakin so that they could turn the waaw into an alif so that every verb (which has waaw or yaa as aynul-kalimah, will follow one single pattern instead of differing.
Every `ayn which has a waaw or yaa will be turned into an alif in any case just as in the thulaathiyy.
So in أَقْوَم they first moved the harakah on the waaw (which is a fathah) to the silent letter before it (the Qaaf) to get it ready to turn the waaw into an ailf – أَقَوْمَ and then they gave that fathah the harf `illah that goes with it which is the alif by changing the saakin waaw to an alif to get: أَقام. What is done to the thulaathiyy is also done to the rubaa’iyy with no difference.
يُقْوِمُ changes to يُقِيمُ (Here we apply the principle – if aynul-kalimah was a waaw or yaa’ and the letter before it was saakin, it is mandatory to move the harakah to it). First we end up with yuqiwmu – and whenever a silent waaw comes after a kasrah then it is turned into a yaa’ Just as we turned that silent waaw after a fathah into an alif. Take this as a principle as well: whenever a silent waaw comes after a kasrah then the waaw is turned into a yaa’.
إِقْوَام changes to إِقَامَة
The same principles apply here – we move the fathah on the waaw to the Qaaf, then we turn the waaw to a letter that suits the fathah and that is only the alif so now it reads: إِقَاام
then two alifs met – and this means two saakins since alif does not accept a harakah so here we have a meeting of two sukoons therefore, we do a little investigation – we look to the first letter and if it is harf illah and there is proof of it (meaning a fathah before it) then we drop it so now we have: إِقَام
- Usually if the letter which is disposed of/dropped was an original letter they tend to make up for it (there is a difference if doing this is mandatory or not) but how did they make up for it? they added a closed taa at the end so now it reads:إِقَامَةٌ (just as they did in other words such as: عِدَةٌ and زِنَةٌ which was after they dropped the waaw they added the taa to make up for it.)
- Then when we bring it on this grammatical state (ifaalaa – where it gets a fathah at the end ) it is:إِقَامَةً
– So this is when it is mu`tallul-`ayn (ajwaf).
SOME QUESTIONS AROSE AT THIS POINT:
The two alifs arent merged into one madd becasue they are both saakin and the rule for merging two identical letters is that – the first is saakin and the second is mutaharrik. – the alif is never mutaharrik.
- The taa at the end of the masdar is only when the masdar falls into this first issue – that is- if its `ayn is a waaw or a yaa’. Every masdar with a waaw or yaa as its ayn will have a taa at the end.
- We replace the dropped letter because that dropped letter is an original letter and whatever is an original letter is usually made up for. We have proof of it (of the alif which is the fathah) but even though we have proof of it, when there are two alifs here- that (one was) dropped – we wanted to preserve the alif of the masdar which is the extra alif, by making up for the other alif which was originally a waaw. For example in Iqaamah- even there is a dispute: Is this alif that was dropped the alif of the aynul-kalimah or the alif of the masdar? The scale of the masdar is:إِفعال with two extra letters: the hamzah and the alif – this `Ayn was turned into an alif and then this alif was dropped. So hypthetically, the scale was then:إِفال When this alif was dropped the masdar was now broken because one of its orginal letters has been lost- so they wanted to make up for that by putting the taa at the end.
- They give a fathah (ftahatayn) on the end because here if this was a full sentence – in this order :أَقَامَ – يُقِيمُ – إِقَامَةً it would have a certain grammatical position which would give it a fathah, even just the last two (yuqeemu – iqaamatan), when they were read together, usually it would resemble a sentence which is read this way. The masdar here, usually and commonly, after the verb has a certain grammatical state which necessitates a fathah. As it is in the Qur’aan:
وَكَلَّمَ اللَّـهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكلِيمًا
Here the verb (kallama) is followed by the masdar (takleeman) and when this occurs, the masdar emphasizes the verb. the grammatical scholars called this: Maf`oolun mutlaq – the maf’ool mutlaq gets a fathah n this case. So the duty of such masaadir (plural of masdar) when they are coming after the verb – it is usually to emphasize the meaning of the verb. And it also gets a certain grammatical position having the fathah – so that is why you have Iqaamatan.
VERY BENEFICIAL POINT>>>
When the verb is emphasized by the masdar it negates the metaphorical meaning.
EXAMPLE: If you say: “I saw a lion” you could mean two things: the literal meaning or the metaphorical meaning. YOu could mean you saw an actual lion or you could say it meaning you saw a strong or brave man. In Arabic the metaphor is called: :مجاز (majaaz). Majaaz are words which are used for other than their original meanings (haqeeqah – their reality) due to a relationship between the words literal meaning and mtaphorical meaning. Like Allaah Ta’aalaa calls the Quran ; “An-Noor” this is because it does just what a light does – it gives clear guidance by which people find a clear path … this is the relationship between the literal meaning of light and the metaphorical meaning.
Now the very inportant benefit: If there is a word in a sentence, and this word has a literal meaning it is used for and a possible metaphorical meaning that is used for… which meaning is given a priority in this context? the actual meaning is given preference. If you said: “I saw a lion” then the one who heard you is going to think you saw an actual lion! not that you saw a strong courageous man. Now here is where the deviants went wrong in regards to Allaahs Names and Attributes, They said: Any attribute which the mind (their corrupt minds) does not accept then give it the metaphorical meaning. And this is the plot of Iblees – the one who taught his followers this twisted way of opposing the revelation (as Iblees opposed Allaahs command to prostrate to Adam). Allaah said that He speaks, but ibless told his followers, no (this cant be) for if He speaks that means he has a mouth and jaws and a throat – (resembling to the creation) – Allaah never said this and His Prophet sallallaahu`alayhi wasallam never said this, but this is what Iblees whispered to them.
Iblees set this trap for them which is based upon a wrong estimation in the first place because when you say that everyone who speaks has a mouth and jaws etc… this is only the reality for you – the one who is created – the human being.
So if you (as an example) did not accept this according to the satanic doubt that shaytan put you in which is if Allaah is attributed something it has to resemble yours – it is not that way in the first place – whenever we attribute something to Allaah it is the foundation that we understand it is not at all like when we refer it to ourselves. Because Allaah is unlike anything else which He has created as in the verse 42/11:
لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ
There is nothing like Him … if you did not accept that Allaah Speaks (its literal meaning) becuase that would mean (in the wrong thiking) that He has a mouth like yours etc … then you did not act upon this verse (Laisa kamithlihi shay’) because you imagined that He has something like His creation. it is built upon a wrong assumption.
So when we say that Allaah speaks it does not mean that He has what a human being has so He speaks like a human being does because Allaah speaks unlike anything else. His speaking i unlike the speaking of His creation. and this is a rule to be followed regarding every other attribute –
SO those deviants which lost their way, they said: “Any attribute which our logic does not accept (their logic being that they cant accept the literal meaning because that would mean His Attributes would be like ours) – they said we have to give it the metaphorical usage. That is why they said: Allaahs Face means His Grace, and Allaah’s Hands means His Power and Allaah Speaks does not mean He literally spoke – that the sound and the letters are from Him – no it means that He created a sound heard. Basically they went back to saying that Allaah doesnt Speak becuase they said that the sound which is heard is a part of His creation and if it is a part of His creation, then He doesnt speak, and if He doesnt speak – then what kind of God doesn’t speak …. their logic really took them far from the path …. this kind of thinking was widespread from 400’s to 700’s even amongst scholars who fell into this trap (because there were heads calling to it). This deviations will be explained clearly in detail in the classes of Aqeedah ….
BY DEFAULT – take it as a principle to avoid falling into a trap – the meaning which is given is the literal meaning … Now if a deviant wants to say to you that in this verse (وَكَلَّمَ اللَّـهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيمًا ) the kallama doesnt mean He actually spoke, it is a metaphorical meaning … you say to him – You are wrong because when the verb is emphasized by the masdar it negates the metaphorical meaning – no possibility for the metaphorical usage here.
~End of Dars ~
والله تعالى أعلم … الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
transcribed by Umm Omar Al Amreekiyyah
Screen Shots >>>