Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And this is for the sake of *idrab*, if intention accompanied it, *** and without intention, it is an error by which it is negated"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But with that, he says:
"And this is for the sake of *idrab*, if intention accompanied it":
"And this": the referent is the last category, which is the one conjoined with *bal*. It is divided into two categories: sometimes it is for *idrab*, and sometimes it is for what? For error and forgetfulness; it is an error and forgetfulness.
It has become clear to us now: are the categories of *badal* five or four?
First: that it is a match, and it is called *badl al-kull min al-kull* (substitute of the whole from the whole), such as if you say — the author gives us an example, we will postpone it until the example comes —, second: or a part, in that the *badal* is a part of the *mubdal minhu* (the thing from which the substitution is made), a part of it, like his hand, his leg, his eye, his head, and the like. And it is possible to interpret the author's words: that the *badal* is a part of the *mubdal minhu*, or the reverse, which is called *badl al-kull min al-ba'd* (substitute of the whole from the part), but that is contrary to the apparent meaning of his words. Third: *badl al-ishtimal* (substitute of inclusion), *badl al-ishtimal* is when there is a relationship between the *badal* and the *mubdal minhu* other than part-whole, yes, because if it were part-whole, it would be *badl ba'd min kull* (substitute of a part from the whole), but there is a connection or relationship that is not part-whole, but rather another matter, like knowledge, wealth, the horse, and the like.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The slightest connection, the slightest connection constitutes a relationship. And the fourth: *badl al-idrab* (substitute of *idrab*), these are five. And the fifth: *badl al-ghalat* (substitute of error), these are five things. So *badal*, according to the detail of Ibn Malik, is of five types, and according to the interpretation of Ibn Jurum, it is of four types. Yes, and the meaning is close; let us see now.
The student: *Badal* — O Shaykh — is *badl al-idrab* not included in *badl al-ghalat*?
The Shaykh : No, it is not included, and for this reason he said:
"And this is for the sake of *idrab*, if intention accompanied it *** and without intention, it is an error by which it is negated":
This last one is attributed to *idrab* if you intend that the first one shares the ruling with the second. If you intend that they all share in the ruling, then call it *idrab*. And by this we know that it differs from the one conjoined with *bal*, because the one conjoined with *bal*, as mentioned before, hmm?
It establishes the ruling for what comes after it, and is silent about what comes before it. And with this, here he says: "Attribute it to *idrab* if intention accompanied it".
Yes, "and without intention": meaning, and if you did not intend the first one.
"It is an error by which it is negated": meaning, if you did not intend the first one, but it slipped from your tongue without intention, call it *badal*, *badal al-ghalat*.
But the first one, you intended to attribute the ruling to it, then you turned away and attributed it to the second. And on this basis, we return in our explanation and say: that he intended it first, then turned away from it lastly, so the ruling became for the last one only. But the difference between it and error is: that in error, he did not intend the first one at all, he did not intend it at all, but his tongue rushed to this word and he said it. So the categories now are five: matching, *badl ba'd* (substitute of a part), *badl al-ishtimal* (substitute of inclusion), *badl al-idrab* (substitute of *idrab*), and *badl al-ghalat* (substitute of error).
And the difference between *badl al-idrab* and *badl al-ghalat* is: that in *badl al-idrab*, the one making the *idrab* intended the first one, which is the *mubdal minhu*, and then turned to the second. As for *badl al-ghalat*, he did not intend it at all. So in reality, the ruling is for the last one, is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The ruling is for the last one in both cases, but did he intend the first one and then turn away, or did he not intend it but his tongue rushed or he made a mistake? Yes.
"And this is for the sake of *idrab*, if intention accompanied it":
"And this": the referent is the last category, which is the one conjoined with *bal*. It is divided into two categories: sometimes it is for *idrab*, and sometimes it is for what? For error and forgetfulness; it is an error and forgetfulness.
It has become clear to us now: are the categories of *badal* five or four?
First: that it is a match, and it is called *badl al-kull min al-kull* (substitute of the whole from the whole), such as if you say — the author gives us an example, we will postpone it until the example comes —, second: or a part, in that the *badal* is a part of the *mubdal minhu* (the thing from which the substitution is made), a part of it, like his hand, his leg, his eye, his head, and the like. And it is possible to interpret the author's words: that the *badal* is a part of the *mubdal minhu*, or the reverse, which is called *badl al-kull min al-ba'd* (substitute of the whole from the part), but that is contrary to the apparent meaning of his words. Third: *badl al-ishtimal* (substitute of inclusion), *badl al-ishtimal* is when there is a relationship between the *badal* and the *mubdal minhu* other than part-whole, yes, because if it were part-whole, it would be *badl ba'd min kull* (substitute of a part from the whole), but there is a connection or relationship that is not part-whole, but rather another matter, like knowledge, wealth, the horse, and the like.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The slightest connection, the slightest connection constitutes a relationship. And the fourth: *badl al-idrab* (substitute of *idrab*), these are five. And the fifth: *badl al-ghalat* (substitute of error), these are five things. So *badal*, according to the detail of Ibn Malik, is of five types, and according to the interpretation of Ibn Jurum, it is of four types. Yes, and the meaning is close; let us see now.
The student: *Badal* — O Shaykh — is *badl al-idrab* not included in *badl al-ghalat*?
The Shaykh : No, it is not included, and for this reason he said:
"And this is for the sake of *idrab*, if intention accompanied it *** and without intention, it is an error by which it is negated":
This last one is attributed to *idrab* if you intend that the first one shares the ruling with the second. If you intend that they all share in the ruling, then call it *idrab*. And by this we know that it differs from the one conjoined with *bal*, because the one conjoined with *bal*, as mentioned before, hmm?
It establishes the ruling for what comes after it, and is silent about what comes before it. And with this, here he says: "Attribute it to *idrab* if intention accompanied it".
Yes, "and without intention": meaning, and if you did not intend the first one.
"It is an error by which it is negated": meaning, if you did not intend the first one, but it slipped from your tongue without intention, call it *badal*, *badal al-ghalat*.
But the first one, you intended to attribute the ruling to it, then you turned away and attributed it to the second. And on this basis, we return in our explanation and say: that he intended it first, then turned away from it lastly, so the ruling became for the last one only. But the difference between it and error is: that in error, he did not intend the first one at all, he did not intend it at all, but his tongue rushed to this word and he said it. So the categories now are five: matching, *badl ba'd* (substitute of a part), *badl al-ishtimal* (substitute of inclusion), *badl al-idrab* (substitute of *idrab*), and *badl al-ghalat* (substitute of error).
And the difference between *badl al-idrab* and *badl al-ghalat* is: that in *badl al-idrab*, the one making the *idrab* intended the first one, which is the *mubdal minhu*, and then turned to the second. As for *badl al-ghalat*, he did not intend it at all. So in reality, the ruling is for the last one, is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The ruling is for the last one in both cases, but did he intend the first one and then turn away, or did he not intend it but his tongue rushed or he made a mistake? Yes.