وَلَوْAnd ifاحْتَجَّsomeone arguesمُحْتَجٌّan arguerفِيinمَسْأَلَةٍa matterبِحَدِيثٍwith a hadithأَخْرَجَاهُthey bring outفِيinالصَّحِيحَيْنِthe two authentic booksعَنْfromالنَّبِيِّthe Prophetﷺ, peace be upon him
And if someone argues in a matter with a hadith they bring out from the two authentic books from the Prophet, peace be upon him.
لَقَالُواThey would sayهَذَاthisخَبَرٌis a reportوَاحِدٌoneوَيَكُونُand it isمِمَّاfrom whichاتَّفَقَthe scholars agreedالعُلَمَاءُthe scholarsعَلَىtoتَصْدِيقِهِbelieve itوَتَلَقِّيِهِand to accept itبِالْقَبُولِwith acceptance.
They would say this is a single report and it is among what the scholars have agreed to believe and accept.
وَهَذَاAnd thisالْبَيْتُverseلَمْhas notيَثْبُتْbeen establishedنَقْلُهُits transmissionعَنْfromقَائِلِهِits speakerبِإِسْنَادٍwith a chain of narratorsصَحِيحٍauthenticلَاneitherوَاحِدٌoneوَلَاnorأَكْثَرُmore than one.
And this verse has not been established as transmitted from its speaker with an authentic chain, neither one nor more than one.
وَلَاAnd notتُلَقَّهُit was acceptedأَهْلُby the people ofالْعَرَبِيَّةِArabic languageبِالْقَبُولِwith acceptance.فَكَيْفَSo howيَثْبُتُis it establishedبِهِby itأَدْنَىthe smallestشَيْءٍthingمِنْofاللُّغَةِthe language,فَضْلًاlet aloneعَنْfromمُسَمَّىthe nameالْكَلَامِspeech.
And it was not accepted by the people of the Arabic language, so how can the smallest thing of the language be established by it, let alone the name of speech?
ثُمَّThenيُقَالُit is saidمُسَمَّىthe nameالْكَلَامِof speechوَالْقَوْلُand sayingوَنَحْوُهُمَاand the like of themلَيْسَis notهُوَitمِمَّاamong whatيُحْتَاجُis neededفِيهِin itإِلَىtoقَوْلِthe sayingالشَّاعِرِof the poet,فَإِنَّfor thisهَذَاthisمِمَّاis whatتَكَلَّمَwas spokenبِهِby itالأَوَّلُونَthe ancientsوَالْآخِرُونَand the latter onesمِنْfromأَهْلِthe people ofاللُّغَةِthe language,وَعَرَفُواand they knewمَعْنَاهُits meaningفِيinلُغَتِهِمْtheir languageكَمَاjust asعَرَفُواthey knewمُسَمَّىthe namesالرَّأْسِof the headوَالْيَدِand the handوَالرَّجْلِand the foot.
Then it is said that the name of speech and saying and the like are not what is needed to be supported by the saying of the poet, for this is what was spoken by the ancients and the latter ones of the people of the language, and they knew its meaning in their language just as they knew the names of the head, hand, and foot.
وَأَيْضًاAnd alsoفَالنَّاطِقُونَthose who speakبِاللُّغَةِin the languageيَحْتَجُّونَargueبِاسْتِعْمَالِهِمْby their useلِلْأَلفَاظِof the wordsفِيinمَعَانِيهَاtheir meanings,لَاnotبِمَاby whatيَذْكُرُونَهُthey mentionمِنَofالْحُدُودِthe definitions.
And also those who speak in the language argue by their use of the words in their meanings, not by what they mention of the definitions.
فَإِنَّFor indeedأَهْلَthe people ofاللُّغَةِthe languageالنَّاطِقِينَspeakingلَاno oneيَقُولُsaysأَحَدٌoneمِنْهُمْof them:إِنَّthatالرَّأْسَthe headكَذَاis suchوَالْيَدَand the handكَذَاis suchوَالْكَلَامَand the speechكَذَاis suchوَاللَّوْنَand the colorكَذَاis such,بَلْbutيَنْطِقُونَthey articulateبِهَذِهِwith theseالْأَلْفَاظِwordsدَالَّةًpointingعَلَىtoمَعَانِيهَاtheir meanings,فَتُعْرَفُthus it is knownلُغَتُهُمْtheir languageمِنْbyاسْتِعْمَالِهِمْtheir use.
For indeed, no one of the people of the language says that the head is such, and the hand is such, and speech is such, and color is such, but they articulate with these words pointing to their meanings, thus their language is known by their use.
فَعُلِمَIt is knownأَنَّthatالأَخْطَلُAl-Akhtalلَمْdid notيَرِدْintendبِهَذَاby thisأَنْtoيَذْكُرَmentionمُسَمَّىthe nameالْكَلَامِof speech,وَلَاnorأَحَدٌanyoneمِنَofالشُّعَرَاءِthe poetsيَقْصِدُintendsذَلِكَthat at all.
It is known that Al-Akhtal did not intend by this to mention the name of speech, nor does anyone of the poets intend that at all.
وَإِنْAnd ifكَانَhe wasقَالَsayingذَلِكَthatمَاwhatفَسَّرَهُhe interpretedبِهِby itالْمُفَسِّرُونَthe interpretersلِلشِّعْرِof poetry,أَيْwhich isأَصْلُthe essenceالْكَلَامِof speechمِنَfromالْفُؤَادِthe heart,وَهُوَand it isالْمَعْنَىthe meaning.
And if he was saying that which the interpreters interpret for poetry, which is the essence of speech from the heart, and it is the meaning.
فَإِذَاSo ifقَالَhe saysالْإِنْسَانُa personبِلِسَانِهِwith his tongueمَاwhatلَيْسَis notفِيinقَلْبِهِhis heartفَلَاthen do notتَثِقْtrustبِهِin him.
So if a person says with his tongue what is not in his heart, then do not trust in him.
وَهَذَاAnd thisكَالْأَقْوَالِis like the sayingsالَّتِيthatذَكَرَهَاwere mentionedاللَّهُby Allahعَنْaboutالْمُنَافِقِينَthe hypocrites,ذَكَرَHe mentionedأَنَّهُمْthat theyيَقُولُونَsayبِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْwith their tonguesمَاwhatلَيْسَis notفِيinقُلُوبِهِمْtheir hearts.
And this is like the sayings that were mentioned by Allah about the hypocrites, that they say with their tongues what is not in their hearts.
وَلِهَذَاAnd for this reasonقَالَHe said:لَاDo notيُعْجِبَنَّكَbe impressed byمِنْfromخَطِيبٍthe speaker untilخُطْبَةٍthe speechحَتَّىuntilيَكُونَit becomesمَعَwithالْكَلَامِthe speechأَصِيلًاoriginal.
And for this reason He said: Do not be impressed by the speaker until the speech is original.
إِنَّIndeedالْكَلَامَthe speechلَفِيis inالْفُؤَادِthe heartوَإِنَّمَاand onlyجُعِلَmadeاللِّسَانُthe tongueعَلَىonالْفُؤَادِthe heartدَلِيلًاevidence.
Indeed, the speech is in the heart, and the tongue is made as evidence for the heart.
نَهَاهُHe forbade himأَنْtoيُعْجَبَbe impressedبِقَوْلِهِby his apparent sayingالظَّاهِرِthe apparentحَتَّىuntilيَعْلَمَhe knowsمَاwhatفِيis inقَلْبِهِhis heartمِنَofالأَصْلِthe origin,وَلِهَذَاوَلِهَذَاقَالَhe said:حَتَّىuntilيَكُونَit isمَعَwithالْكَلَامِthe speechأَصِيلًاoriginal.
He forbade him to be impressed by his apparent saying until he knows what is in his heart of the origin, and for this reason he said until it is with the speech original.
وَلِهَذَاAnd for this reasonقَالَHe said:مَعَWithالْكَلَامِthe speechدَلِيلٌis proofعَلَىofأَنَّthatلِلْلَّفْظِthe wordالظَّاهِرِthe apparentقَدْhasسَمَّاهُcalled itكَلَامًاspeech,وَإِنْand ifلَمْnotيَعْلَمْknowقِيَامَthe existenceمَعْنَاهُof its meaningفِي قَلْبِin the heartصَاحِبِهِof its owner.وَهَذَاAnd thisحُجَّةٌis proofعَلَيْهِمْagainst them.
And for this reason, he said: With the speech is proof that the apparent word has been called speech, even if one does not know the existence of its meaning in the heart of its owner. And this is proof against them.
فَقَدْIndeedاشْتَمَلَhis poetry includesشِعْرُهُhis poemعَلَىonهَذَاthis,وَهَذَاand thisبَلْbutقَوْلُهُhis sayingمَعَwithالْكَلَامِthe speechمُطْلَقٌis absolute,وَقَوْلُهُand his sayingإِنَّthatالْكَلَامَthe speechلَفِيis inالْفُؤَادِthe heartأَرَادَhe meantبِهِby itأَصْلَهُits essenceوَمَعْنَاهُand its intended meaningالْمَقْصُودُand the intended meaning of it.وَاللِّسَانُAnd the tongueدَلِيلٌis proofعَلَىforذَلِكَthat.
Indeed, his poetry includes this, and his saying with the speech is absolute, and his saying that the speech is in the heart meant by it its essence and intended meaning, and the tongue is proof for that.
(۱)(1)[فِي[Inالْأَصْلِthe original text,أَثِيرٌit was stated,وَالصَّوَابُand the correctionمَاthatذَكَرْنَاwe mentionedاُنظرْseeشِعْرَthe poetryالأَخْطَلِof Al-Akhtalالْصَّفْحَةَthe page٥٠٨508].
(1) [In the original text, it was stated, and the correction is what we mentioned, see the poetry of Al-Akhtal, page 508].