Is the implication of commitment a branch of the implication of correspondence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : How can it not be? Because commitment is a branch, it cannot be a root. The important point now is that the implication of commitment is a branch of the implication of correspondence, so it cannot be a root. For example, if a student says, "I am a builder," without actually building, he is not a builder.
The student: And is the converse true?
The Shaykh : The converse is true. Yes, sometimes it is implied and sometimes it is not. For example, if I say, "This man is standing," it implies only a standing entity, an entity and its standing. There may not be an implication. The implication is not constant. The important thing is that the implication of a word to its full meaning is correspondence, to a part of it is inclusion, and to something external that is derived from the word is commitment. This is it, and Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : How can it not be? Because commitment is a branch, it cannot be a root. The important point now is that the implication of commitment is a branch of the implication of correspondence, so it cannot be a root. For example, if a student says, "I am a builder," without actually building, he is not a builder.
The student: And is the converse true?
The Shaykh : The converse is true. Yes, sometimes it is implied and sometimes it is not. For example, if I say, "This man is standing," it implies only a standing entity, an entity and its standing. There may not be an implication. The implication is not constant. The important thing is that the implication of a word to its full meaning is correspondence, to a part of it is inclusion, and to something external that is derived from the word is commitment. This is it, and Allah knows best.