Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The third is the substitute of inclusion. We said that the substitute must have a type of connection to the thing it substitutes. For example: "Zayd benefited me with his knowledge." "Zayd benefited me with his knowledge." His knowledge has a connection to Zayd because it is a description of him. Who benefited me, Zayd or his knowledge?
The student: His knowledge.
The Shaykh : His knowledge. "Zayd benefited me with his wealth?" Hmm?
The student: His wealth.
The Shaykh : This is also a substitute of inclusion. "Zayd benefited me with his son?" That is also inclusion. The important thing is that the second one, which is the substitute, has a connection to the thing it substitutes. "I burned Zayd, his book?" Hmm? Is it a substitute of inclusion?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, it is a substitute of inclusion, because if you said: "You burned Zayd," then what?
The student: He stands...
The Shaykh : No, "he stands" at least confuses you. So if you said: "his book," that confusion is gone. Okay, "I hit Zayd, his side?"
The student: Substitute of inclusion.
The Shaykh : This is also a substitute of inclusion, because of the relationship between Zayd and his side. This is a substitute of inclusion. "I saw Zayd, the horse?"
The student: An example of error.
The Shaykh : No, no, this is a substitute of error. The example is correct.
The student: Substitute of error.
The Shaykh : You are saying: "error" means "substitute of error" or "the example is wrong"?
The student: Substitute of error.
The Shaykh : Substitute of error. Good, this is correct. "I saw Zayd, the horse." If I said: "I saw Zayd, his horse," and I added the possessive, it would become inclusion. But if I said: "I saw Zayd," people would say: How did you see Zayd? Zayd has been dead for ten years. He said: "The horse." The horse. Yes! So this is called: a substitute of error. Write it down, everyone. The author says: "You intended to say: 'the horse,' but you made a mistake and substituted Zayd for it". At first, you intended to say: "I saw the horse," but your tongue rushed ahead and you said: "I saw Zayd," then you mentioned it and said: "the horse." That is why it is called a substitute?
The student: Wrong.
The Shaykh : A substitute of error. It is called a substitute of error. But Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "This type of substitute, if it is intentional, is a shift (idrab), and if it is unintentional, it is an error". What does "shift" mean? It means that you shifted from the first to the second, because there is no error. You did not make a mistake. You said first: "I saw Zayd," then you wanted to hide your seeing of Zayd, so you said: What? "The horse." And note, everyone, is the ruling in the substitute for the second one or the first?
The student: For the second.
The Shaykh : How quickly you forget. We said: the substitute is the intended substitute, not the thing it substitutes. So the ruling is for what?
The student: For the second.
The Shaykh : For the second. Now look at this word. First: the ruling in "Zayd, your brother, stood up" is for the second. "I ate the loaf, a third of it," the second. "Zayd benefited me with his knowledge," the second. "I saw Zayd, the horse," the second, because Zayd was not seen now. But if it came from you by mistake or forgetfulness, this is a substitute of error, if it is unintentional. If it is intentional, it is called a substitute of shift. Okay, so the substitute follows the thing it substitutes in grammatical case, whether it is a noun or a verb. So, verbs can substitute for one another, right? Yes. Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Furqan 25:68-69]. "Yud'a'af" (is doubled) is a substitute for "yalaq" (meets). "Yalaq" is in the jussive case by dropping the alif, and "yud'a'af" is in the jussive case by sukun. This is the substitute. Yes, okay. So, if I said: "Zayd came, Zayd arrived," this is also a substitute, a substitute of the whole for the whole, because "came" and "arrived" have the same meaning. They all involve arrival. So, the result is that the substitute follows the thing it substitutes in grammatical case, whether it is a verb or a noun. Okay, whoever is late for the lesson will be punished, his book will be destroyed?
The student: An apposition.
The Shaykh : "His book will be destroyed" is a substitute for what?
The student: "Will be punished."
The Shaykh : "Will be punished." A verb substituting for a verb, right? Okay. Whoever memorizes the lesson, I will honor him, I will give him a book?
The student: Substitute.
The Shaykh : This is also a substitute. "I gave him a book" is a substitute for "I honored him." And so on. This is the last of the followers: the substitute. The substitute is a follower of the thing it substitutes, intended for the ruling without an intermediary. This is the substitute. It follows the thing it substitutes in grammatical case, whether it is a verb or a noun. Okay, is it clear, if Allah wills? How many types are there?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four: substitute of the whole for the whole, substitute of a part for the whole, inclusion, and error. Yes, that's right.
The student: His knowledge.
The Shaykh : His knowledge. "Zayd benefited me with his wealth?" Hmm?
The student: His wealth.
The Shaykh : This is also a substitute of inclusion. "Zayd benefited me with his son?" That is also inclusion. The important thing is that the second one, which is the substitute, has a connection to the thing it substitutes. "I burned Zayd, his book?" Hmm? Is it a substitute of inclusion?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, it is a substitute of inclusion, because if you said: "You burned Zayd," then what?
The student: He stands...
The Shaykh : No, "he stands" at least confuses you. So if you said: "his book," that confusion is gone. Okay, "I hit Zayd, his side?"
The student: Substitute of inclusion.
The Shaykh : This is also a substitute of inclusion, because of the relationship between Zayd and his side. This is a substitute of inclusion. "I saw Zayd, the horse?"
The student: An example of error.
The Shaykh : No, no, this is a substitute of error. The example is correct.
The student: Substitute of error.
The Shaykh : You are saying: "error" means "substitute of error" or "the example is wrong"?
The student: Substitute of error.
The Shaykh : Substitute of error. Good, this is correct. "I saw Zayd, the horse." If I said: "I saw Zayd, his horse," and I added the possessive, it would become inclusion. But if I said: "I saw Zayd," people would say: How did you see Zayd? Zayd has been dead for ten years. He said: "The horse." The horse. Yes! So this is called: a substitute of error. Write it down, everyone. The author says: "You intended to say: 'the horse,' but you made a mistake and substituted Zayd for it". At first, you intended to say: "I saw the horse," but your tongue rushed ahead and you said: "I saw Zayd," then you mentioned it and said: "the horse." That is why it is called a substitute?
The student: Wrong.
The Shaykh : A substitute of error. It is called a substitute of error. But Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "This type of substitute, if it is intentional, is a shift (idrab), and if it is unintentional, it is an error". What does "shift" mean? It means that you shifted from the first to the second, because there is no error. You did not make a mistake. You said first: "I saw Zayd," then you wanted to hide your seeing of Zayd, so you said: What? "The horse." And note, everyone, is the ruling in the substitute for the second one or the first?
The student: For the second.
The Shaykh : How quickly you forget. We said: the substitute is the intended substitute, not the thing it substitutes. So the ruling is for what?
The student: For the second.
The Shaykh : For the second. Now look at this word. First: the ruling in "Zayd, your brother, stood up" is for the second. "I ate the loaf, a third of it," the second. "Zayd benefited me with his knowledge," the second. "I saw Zayd, the horse," the second, because Zayd was not seen now. But if it came from you by mistake or forgetfulness, this is a substitute of error, if it is unintentional. If it is intentional, it is called a substitute of shift. Okay, so the substitute follows the thing it substitutes in grammatical case, whether it is a noun or a verb. So, verbs can substitute for one another, right? Yes. Allah the Exalted said:
(68) And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. (69) Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -
ومن يفعل ذلك يلق أثامًا يضاعف له العذابThe student: An apposition.
The Shaykh : "His book will be destroyed" is a substitute for what?
The student: "Will be punished."
The Shaykh : "Will be punished." A verb substituting for a verb, right? Okay. Whoever memorizes the lesson, I will honor him, I will give him a book?
The student: Substitute.
The Shaykh : This is also a substitute. "I gave him a book" is a substitute for "I honored him." And so on. This is the last of the followers: the substitute. The substitute is a follower of the thing it substitutes, intended for the ruling without an intermediary. This is the substitute. It follows the thing it substitutes in grammatical case, whether it is a verb or a noun. Okay, is it clear, if Allah wills? How many types are there?
The student: Four.
The Shaykh : Four: substitute of the whole for the whole, substitute of a part for the whole, inclusion, and error. Yes, that's right.