(Explanation that a qualified merit does not necessitate absolute superiority, and the mention of an example) And the merit that is qualified is not a proof of *** absolute superiority over a person who
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says:
"And the merit that is qualified is not a proof of *** absolute superiority over a person"
It means: that a qualified merit does not necessitate that the one with the merit be superior to the one with the absolute merit. Is that clear, or is it not clear?
Merit is of two types: absolute merit, where this person is superior to others absolutely.
Qualified merit, where one is preferred over another in a specific matter. So, if a person is preferred over another in a specific matter, does it necessitate that he is superior to him absolutely? No, and for this reason he said:
"And the merit that is qualified is not a proof of *** absolute superiority over a person"
It means: it is not a proof of superiority over one whose merit is absolute.
"It does not necessitate that the qualification *** be judged for him as equality, so how could it be superiority?"
Correct, it means: that a qualified merit does not necessitate that he be equal to the one with the absolute merit, let alone that he be more superior and higher than him. And he spoke the truth. For example, we now say: the Tabi'un are superior to the Tabi' al-Tabi'in absolutely, but there may be someone in the Tabi' al-Tabi'in who is superior to many of the Tabi'un, but he is a specific individual. Likewise, merits in a specific person: a man may have many merits and be superior to others absolutely, while another may have a specific quality that is better than the first one's, and this does not necessitate that the second one is superior absolutely.
"And the merit that is qualified is not a proof of *** absolute superiority over a person"
It means: that a qualified merit does not necessitate that the one with the merit be superior to the one with the absolute merit. Is that clear, or is it not clear?
Merit is of two types: absolute merit, where this person is superior to others absolutely.
Qualified merit, where one is preferred over another in a specific matter. So, if a person is preferred over another in a specific matter, does it necessitate that he is superior to him absolutely? No, and for this reason he said:
"And the merit that is qualified is not a proof of *** absolute superiority over a person"
It means: it is not a proof of superiority over one whose merit is absolute.
"It does not necessitate that the qualification *** be judged for him as equality, so how could it be superiority?"
Correct, it means: that a qualified merit does not necessitate that he be equal to the one with the absolute merit, let alone that he be more superior and higher than him. And he spoke the truth. For example, we now say: the Tabi'un are superior to the Tabi' al-Tabi'in absolutely, but there may be someone in the Tabi' al-Tabi'in who is superior to many of the Tabi'un, but he is a specific individual. Likewise, merits in a specific person: a man may have many merits and be superior to others absolutely, while another may have a specific quality that is better than the first one's, and this does not necessitate that the second one is superior absolutely.