Explanation of the statement of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): The substitute for the doer
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment.
The author said: "The substitute for the doer". The author, Ibn Malik, said: "The substitute for the doer". This is a good arrangement, as he first mentioned the doer, then mentioned the substitute for it. The substitute for the doer is: the object of the action when the doer is omitted. It is the object of the action when the doer is omitted, but this necessitates changing the form of the verb, because the doer is the original, and the substitute is the branch. Therefore, a different house must be built for the substitute, other than the first house. The first one has a well-built house in which nothing has changed, whereas this one must have a house that is changed from its first house, and that is by changing the form of the verb. Then, the substitute for the doer, which is the object of the action when the doer is omitted, is done for many purposes that grammarians do not mention, because this is not their concern. Rather, the people of rhetoric are the ones who mention why the doer is omitted: because it is known, to conceal it, or because it is unknown. Yes, I say because it is known, because it is known from the doer, for example,[An-Nisa 4:28] It is known who the Creator is. Yes, it is known. The goods were stolen; the thief may have been hidden either because he is unknown or to conceal him. So the important point is that there are reasons that necessitate the omission of the doer and the object of the action taking its place. So if the doer is omitted and the object of the action is placed in its position, what do we do? Is it given the ruling of the doer because it is its substitute? Or does it have new rulings? We say: Listen to the statement of Ibn Malik.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment.
The author said: "The substitute for the doer". The author, Ibn Malik, said: "The substitute for the doer". This is a good arrangement, as he first mentioned the doer, then mentioned the substitute for it. The substitute for the doer is: the object of the action when the doer is omitted. It is the object of the action when the doer is omitted, but this necessitates changing the form of the verb, because the doer is the original, and the substitute is the branch. Therefore, a different house must be built for the substitute, other than the first house. The first one has a well-built house in which nothing has changed, whereas this one must have a house that is changed from its first house, and that is by changing the form of the verb. Then, the substitute for the doer, which is the object of the action when the doer is omitted, is done for many purposes that grammarians do not mention, because this is not their concern. Rather, the people of rhetoric are the ones who mention why the doer is omitted: because it is known, to conceal it, or because it is unknown. Yes, I say because it is known, because it is known from the doer, for example,