Commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: ((Allah has struck)) for the polytheist and the monotheist ((a parable of a man)) as a substitute for "a parable" ((in whom are partners who dispute with one another)) who are in conflict
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Allah has struck for the polytheist and the monotheist a parable" The author’s specification of the polytheist and the monotheist is clear, because the parable struck, which is the slave owned by partners and the pure slave, applies exactly to the polytheist and the monotheist... "Allah has struck for the polytheist and the monotheist a parable of a man" as a substitute for "parable," and regarding the substitute, Imam Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
: "It is the dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary"
This substitute is the dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary. So his saying: "It is the dependent word intended by the ruling" excludes the other dependent words, and his saying: "without an intermediary" excludes the word conjoined with "bal" (but), for the word conjoined with "bal," if it is for the purpose of negating a previous statement, is the intended word by the ruling, the intended word by the ruling, but it is via an intermediary, so it is not called a substitute. Here he said: "a parable of a man." If you deleted "parable" and said "Allah struck a man," is the speech valid or not? It is valid, because the intended word is "man." And if you said: "I saw Muhammad, Ali," Ali is a substitute for Ali, because the intended word is Ali. If... you addressed someone and said: "I saw Ali, Muhammad?" You know that he intended Muhammad, he intended Muhammad and did not intend Ali, because Muhammad is a substitute for Ali, and the substitute is the intended word by the ruling. But it may be due to a mistake, or it may be due to forgetfulness, or other causes. The important thing is that the substitute is
: "It is the dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary"
This substitute is the dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary. So his saying: "It is the dependent word intended by the ruling" excludes the other dependent words, and his saying: "without an intermediary" excludes the word conjoined with "bal" (but), for the word conjoined with "bal," if it is for the purpose of negating a previous statement, is the intended word by the ruling, the intended word by the ruling, but it is via an intermediary, so it is not called a substitute. Here he said: "a parable of a man." If you deleted "parable" and said "Allah struck a man," is the speech valid or not? It is valid, because the intended word is "man." And if you said: "I saw Muhammad, Ali," Ali is a substitute for Ali, because the intended word is Ali. If... you addressed someone and said: "I saw Ali, Muhammad?" You know that he intended Muhammad, he intended Muhammad and did not intend Ali, because Muhammad is a substitute for Ali, and the substitute is the intended word by the ruling. But it may be due to a mistake, or it may be due to forgetfulness, or other causes. The important thing is that the substitute is