Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: "… and it is of four types: the substitute of a thing for a thing, and the substitute of a part for the whole …"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And it is of four types: the substitute of a thing for a thing, the substitute of a part for the whole, the substitute of inclusion, and the substitute of error". These are four things. The first is the substitute of a thing for a thing. By "a thing for a thing," he means the substitute of the whole for the whole, which is the opposite of the substitute of a part for the whole. It means that you substitute something for something equal to it. If you substitute something for something equal to it, you have substituted the whole for the whole. The author will give an example of this. The second is the substitute of a part for the whole, meaning that the substitute is a part of the thing being substituted. The third is the substitute of inclusion, which is when the substitute has a connection to the thing being substituted. The fourth is the substitute of error, which is when the speaker makes a mistake, says something, then remembers and states what was intended. Now, how many are these?
The student: Four types.
The Shaykh : Four: the substitute of the whole for the whole, a part for the whole, inclusion, and error. These are four types. An example is: "Your brother Zayd stood up." "Your brother Zayd stood up": "Your brother" and "Zayd" are equal, because your brother is Zayd and Zayd is your brother. We call this the substitute of the whole for the whole, or a thing for a thing equal to it, because the author's wording is "a thing for a thing," and the meaning is "a thing for a thing equal to it," i.e., the substitute of the whole for the whole. For example, I speak and say: "Zayd came," then I move away from the word "Zayd" and say: "Your brother came," because being his brother is more important than his name being Zayd or 'Amr or whatever it is, because a person's joy in his brother is greater than his joy in Zayd from among people. Now, likewise, I might say: "Your brother came," then I say: "Zayd." "Your brother came," "Your brother came," [the listener] does not know, does not know who it is, so I say: "Zayd." I intend by this that if someone were to ask: Why does he say "Your brother Zayd came," when the intention is to clarify that he is his brother? Why did he not just say "Your brother came" and that would suffice? We say: Because there is a benefit, which is specifying that this brother is whom? What?
The student: Zayd
The Shaykh : That it is Zayd. Now, "I bought a knife, a dirah." "I bought a knife, a dirah." What is this?
The student: The whole for the whole.
The Shaykh : The whole for the whole, because the substitute of a thing for a thing includes even the substitute of a part for the whole, and the substitute of a thing for a thing. But if we say "the substitute of a thing for a thing," we must say "from a thing equal to it." And this is sufficient to say "the substitute of the whole for the whole," as expressed by others besides the author. "I bought a knife, a dirah." This is this, right or not? But I wanted to clarify that what I bought is called a knife and is called a dirah. Now, "I bought a motor, a car." Huh?
The student: "Motor" is not Arabic.
The Shaykh : No, what?
The student: It is not Arabic.
The Shaykh : It is not Arabic, because "motor" means "matur," and I think "matur" includes the car and others. So it is the substitute of a part for the whole. But "motor" among the common people is the car, so it is actually a customary reality. In any case: if the substitute is the same as the thing being substituted, neither more nor less, what do we call it?
The student: The substitute of the whole for the whole.
The Shaykh : The substitute of the whole for the whole. What is its benefit? It must have a benefit, such as specification, or clarifying that this has two names, like: "I bought a dirah, a knife," or "a knife, a dirah." Now, the second: the substitute of a part for the whole, meaning that the second is a part of the first, that the substitute is a part of the thing being substituted. Pay attention, my brother! What is your name?
The student: Badr.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Badr.
The Shaykh : Oh, Badr. That the second is a part of the first, this is what we call: the substitute of a part for the whole. For example, the author says: "I ate the loaf, a third of it". What was actually eaten was the loaf, or a third of it? Huh?
The student: A third of it.
The Shaykh : A third of it. But with the first he said: "I ate the loaf," so when the people gathered their heads—how can he eat a whole loaf?!—he said "a third of it," meaning pay attention, I did not eat the whole loaf but ate a third of it. Like that? This is what we call a part for the whole. "The people came, half of them." What is this?
The student: A part for the whole.
The Shaykh : This is a part for the whole, so the intended meaning is the half, not the people. But I mentioned the people then substituted, the intended meaning is the half. So: what is the rule for the substitute of a part for the whole? What? That the second is a part of the first. Now, "I saw Zayd, a part of him"?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Is this correct?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct? Yes, because seeing can be of the whole or of a part. Like that? Now, "Zayd drank, half of him"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It does not allow division.
The Shaykh : It does not allow division, so if he drank, he is one. If he drank, he is one; it cannot be divided. Now, so the substitute of a part for the whole, we have learned from this: that the thing must be of that which accepts division and partition, otherwise not. Now, some scholars mentioned the opposite of that, i.e.: "the substitute of the whole for a part", and they cited as evidence for it the saying of the poet:
"May Allah have mercy on the greatest, whom they buried *** In Sijistan, Talhah al-Talhati"
Talhah: this is the whole, and "the greatest" is a part. So they said: this is the substitute of the whole for a part. But it is rare. So it is: the substitute of a part for the whole, which is common, and the substitute of the whole for a part, which is rare. Now.
The student: Four types.
The Shaykh : Four: the substitute of the whole for the whole, a part for the whole, inclusion, and error. These are four types. An example is: "Your brother Zayd stood up." "Your brother Zayd stood up": "Your brother" and "Zayd" are equal, because your brother is Zayd and Zayd is your brother. We call this the substitute of the whole for the whole, or a thing for a thing equal to it, because the author's wording is "a thing for a thing," and the meaning is "a thing for a thing equal to it," i.e., the substitute of the whole for the whole. For example, I speak and say: "Zayd came," then I move away from the word "Zayd" and say: "Your brother came," because being his brother is more important than his name being Zayd or 'Amr or whatever it is, because a person's joy in his brother is greater than his joy in Zayd from among people. Now, likewise, I might say: "Your brother came," then I say: "Zayd." "Your brother came," "Your brother came," [the listener] does not know, does not know who it is, so I say: "Zayd." I intend by this that if someone were to ask: Why does he say "Your brother Zayd came," when the intention is to clarify that he is his brother? Why did he not just say "Your brother came" and that would suffice? We say: Because there is a benefit, which is specifying that this brother is whom? What?
The student: Zayd
The Shaykh : That it is Zayd. Now, "I bought a knife, a dirah." "I bought a knife, a dirah." What is this?
The student: The whole for the whole.
The Shaykh : The whole for the whole, because the substitute of a thing for a thing includes even the substitute of a part for the whole, and the substitute of a thing for a thing. But if we say "the substitute of a thing for a thing," we must say "from a thing equal to it." And this is sufficient to say "the substitute of the whole for the whole," as expressed by others besides the author. "I bought a knife, a dirah." This is this, right or not? But I wanted to clarify that what I bought is called a knife and is called a dirah. Now, "I bought a motor, a car." Huh?
The student: "Motor" is not Arabic.
The Shaykh : No, what?
The student: It is not Arabic.
The Shaykh : It is not Arabic, because "motor" means "matur," and I think "matur" includes the car and others. So it is the substitute of a part for the whole. But "motor" among the common people is the car, so it is actually a customary reality. In any case: if the substitute is the same as the thing being substituted, neither more nor less, what do we call it?
The student: The substitute of the whole for the whole.
The Shaykh : The substitute of the whole for the whole. What is its benefit? It must have a benefit, such as specification, or clarifying that this has two names, like: "I bought a dirah, a knife," or "a knife, a dirah." Now, the second: the substitute of a part for the whole, meaning that the second is a part of the first, that the substitute is a part of the thing being substituted. Pay attention, my brother! What is your name?
The student: Badr.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Badr.
The Shaykh : Oh, Badr. That the second is a part of the first, this is what we call: the substitute of a part for the whole. For example, the author says: "I ate the loaf, a third of it". What was actually eaten was the loaf, or a third of it? Huh?
The student: A third of it.
The Shaykh : A third of it. But with the first he said: "I ate the loaf," so when the people gathered their heads—how can he eat a whole loaf?!—he said "a third of it," meaning pay attention, I did not eat the whole loaf but ate a third of it. Like that? This is what we call a part for the whole. "The people came, half of them." What is this?
The student: A part for the whole.
The Shaykh : This is a part for the whole, so the intended meaning is the half, not the people. But I mentioned the people then substituted, the intended meaning is the half. So: what is the rule for the substitute of a part for the whole? What? That the second is a part of the first. Now, "I saw Zayd, a part of him"?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Is this correct?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct? Yes, because seeing can be of the whole or of a part. Like that? Now, "Zayd drank, half of him"?
The student: It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It does not allow division.
The Shaykh : It does not allow division, so if he drank, he is one. If he drank, he is one; it cannot be divided. Now, so the substitute of a part for the whole, we have learned from this: that the thing must be of that which accepts division and partition, otherwise not. Now, some scholars mentioned the opposite of that, i.e.: "the substitute of the whole for a part", and they cited as evidence for it the saying of the poet:
"May Allah have mercy on the greatest, whom they buried *** In Sijistan, Talhah al-Talhati"
Talhah: this is the whole, and "the greatest" is a part. So they said: this is the substitute of the whole for a part. But it is rare. So it is: the substitute of a part for the whole, which is common, and the substitute of the whole for a part, which is rare. Now.