Explanation of the saying of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "The dependent word intended by the ruling without *** an intermediary is what is called a substitute."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for the substitute (badal) in the terminology of grammarians, he (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
"The dependent word intended by the ruling without *** an intermediary is what is called a substitute":
This substitute, "the dependent word": Do you see? We mentioned in the explanation of the al-Safarini creed that a definition must be both comprehensive and exclusive. Is "dependent word" comprehensive or not?
The student: It is comprehensive.
The Shaykh : It is comprehensive, but is it exclusive?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, it is not exclusive, it is not exclusive, because if we limited it and said: the substitute is the dependent word, then all dependent words would fall under it; all past dependent words would fall under this.
"Intended by the ruling": This is also a differentiating factor, but is it comprehensive or not? Intended by the ruling?
The student: It is comprehensive.
The Shaykh : It is comprehensive, but it is not exclusive, it is not exclusive.
The student: How? If you please, can you repeat?
The Shaykh : Yes, "intended by the ruling" means that the speaker intended this substitute, but the other dependent words also fall under it. For example, if I say: "Zayd, the virtuous one, stood up," then "the virtuous one" is intended by the ruling; it is intended by the ruling because I am clarifying his virtue, or clarifying his description with virtue.
And his saying: "Without an intermediary": Likewise, it is intended by the ruling. If I say: "Zayd stood up, but rather 'Amr," but rather 'Amr, what is intended by the ruling now?
The student: 'Amr.
The Shaykh : 'Amr, and yet we do not say that "but rather 'Amr" is from the category of substitution. For this reason, he excluded it by saying: "Without an intermediary". "Without an intermediary" means: that it is not through an intermediary, to exclude what is conjoined with "but rather" (bal). What is conjoined with "but rather" is intended by the ruling; it is a dependent word intended by the ruling alone, but through an intermediary, which is the conjunction. It is the conjunction, yes?
The student: "Intended" means that even the first part, meaning the other dependent words, fall under it, meaning?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It was excluded only by "but rather" (bal), meaning?
The Shaykh : No, it was excluded by his saying: "Without an intermediary".
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So, the dependent word: if you want to know the substitute, you say: "It is the dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary". The dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary. So "dependent word" is a genus that includes all dependent words. "Intended by the ruling" is a differentiating factor that includes what is conjoined with "but rather" (bal), because it is intended by the ruling. And "without an intermediary" excludes what?
The student: What is conjoined with "but rather" (bal).
The Shaykh : What is conjoined with "but rather" (bal).
The student: The ruling by grammatical case?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The ruling?
The Shaykh : And the meaning. The ruling is grammatical case and meaning: "And I made a word follow, just as with but, and, but". The meaning of the ruling is originally not by grammatical case; the ruling is meaning.
"The dependent word intended by the ruling without *** an intermediary is what is called a substitute":
This substitute, "the dependent word": Do you see? We mentioned in the explanation of the al-Safarini creed that a definition must be both comprehensive and exclusive. Is "dependent word" comprehensive or not?
The student: It is comprehensive.
The Shaykh : It is comprehensive, but is it exclusive?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, it is not exclusive, it is not exclusive, because if we limited it and said: the substitute is the dependent word, then all dependent words would fall under it; all past dependent words would fall under this.
"Intended by the ruling": This is also a differentiating factor, but is it comprehensive or not? Intended by the ruling?
The student: It is comprehensive.
The Shaykh : It is comprehensive, but it is not exclusive, it is not exclusive.
The student: How? If you please, can you repeat?
The Shaykh : Yes, "intended by the ruling" means that the speaker intended this substitute, but the other dependent words also fall under it. For example, if I say: "Zayd, the virtuous one, stood up," then "the virtuous one" is intended by the ruling; it is intended by the ruling because I am clarifying his virtue, or clarifying his description with virtue.
And his saying: "Without an intermediary": Likewise, it is intended by the ruling. If I say: "Zayd stood up, but rather 'Amr," but rather 'Amr, what is intended by the ruling now?
The student: 'Amr.
The Shaykh : 'Amr, and yet we do not say that "but rather 'Amr" is from the category of substitution. For this reason, he excluded it by saying: "Without an intermediary". "Without an intermediary" means: that it is not through an intermediary, to exclude what is conjoined with "but rather" (bal). What is conjoined with "but rather" is intended by the ruling; it is a dependent word intended by the ruling alone, but through an intermediary, which is the conjunction. It is the conjunction, yes?
The student: "Intended" means that even the first part, meaning the other dependent words, fall under it, meaning?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It was excluded only by "but rather" (bal), meaning?
The Shaykh : No, it was excluded by his saying: "Without an intermediary".
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So, the dependent word: if you want to know the substitute, you say: "It is the dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary". The dependent word intended by the ruling without an intermediary. So "dependent word" is a genus that includes all dependent words. "Intended by the ruling" is a differentiating factor that includes what is conjoined with "but rather" (bal), because it is intended by the ruling. And "without an intermediary" excludes what?
The student: What is conjoined with "but rather" (bal).
The Shaykh : What is conjoined with "but rather" (bal).
The student: The ruling by grammatical case?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The ruling?
The Shaykh : And the meaning. The ruling is grammatical case and meaning: "And I made a word follow, just as with but, and, but". The meaning of the ruling is originally not by grammatical case; the ruling is meaning.