Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And from the pronoun of the present, the explicit one, do not *** replace it except what encompassing clarity revealed"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"The explicit one, do not *** replace it":
What is the grammatical analysis of "the explicit one"?
It is the object of a deleted verb, estimated as: "Do not replace the explicit name from the pronoun of the present," because his saying "do not replace it" is occupied with its pronoun from placing the explicit one in the accusative, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, and he says: Do not replace the explicit name from where? From the pronoun of the present, which is the pronoun of the speaker and the pronoun of the addressee, the pronoun of the speaker and the addressee, yes, do not replace the explicit name from it. An example of that, if I said, for instance: "I hit you, Zayd," intending to make Zayd a substitute for the kaf, it is not valid. The reason? Because the kaf is a pronoun of the addressee, a pronoun of the present, yes, so it is not permissible for it to be a substitute from the pronoun of the present. And the apparent meaning of his words, fine, let us now look at the implication of his words: Is it permissible to replace the explicit name from the pronoun of the absent, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible, and the author himself gave an example of it, saying:
"Like hitting him, Khalid":
So Khalid is a substitute for the pronoun, which is a pronoun of absence, and it is known from this that it is permissible to replace the explicit from the explicit, yes, and is it so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"Take arrows, a mudd": So "arrows" is explicit and "a mudd" is also explicit, fine, and it is known from his words that it is not permissible to replace the explicit from the pronoun of the speaker, because it is a pronoun of the present, or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : What is an example?! You say: "I honored me, Muhammad," it is not valid if Muhammad is a substitute for the ya. And it is known from his words that it is permissible to replace a pronoun from a pronoun, is it? Is it permissible to replace a pronoun from a pronoun?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is its example? Is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : This, yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Like the saying of the poet... the well-known one.
The Shaykh : They say that the correct view is that it is not a substitute, but rather an emphasis, and this is the correct view, meaning the pronoun with the pronoun does not become a substitute but becomes an emphasis, yes, fine, he said: Do not replace it except in three cases:
"Except what encompassing clarity revealed":
This is one, and what is the meaning of "encompassing clarity"? It means except what revealed encompassing, i.e., a detail indicating generality, yes, so that what you replaced is beneficial for encompassing and comprehensiveness, from something that may or may not be comprehensive, the substitute indicates encompassing and comprehensiveness from something that may encompass and may not, this is one. An example of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:114], so his saying: is a substitute for his saying: "na" in "lana," but it is a substitute with the repetition of the preposition, -put it down for you- and the grammarians' example with that indicates that the substitute is with the intention of repeating the operator, with the intention of repeating the operator, where they said: that this is a substitute with the repetition of the preposition, , look: may mean for us the ones present, it may mean for some of us, it may mean for us the Christians, so when he said: what is it?
The student: It indicated encompassing.
The Shaykh : It indicated encompassing and comprehensiveness, meaning for all of us, for all of us, if someone said: This does not indicate encompassing and comprehensiveness, because he said:, and our middle? Is it?
We say: This is included in it, because mentioning the two ends includes the middle, because they encompass it and differ from it, so it indicates encompassing and comprehensiveness, this is one.
What is the grammatical analysis of "the explicit one"?
It is the object of a deleted verb, estimated as: "Do not replace the explicit name from the pronoun of the present," because his saying "do not replace it" is occupied with its pronoun from placing the explicit one in the accusative, or is it not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, and he says: Do not replace the explicit name from where? From the pronoun of the present, which is the pronoun of the speaker and the pronoun of the addressee, the pronoun of the speaker and the addressee, yes, do not replace the explicit name from it. An example of that, if I said, for instance: "I hit you, Zayd," intending to make Zayd a substitute for the kaf, it is not valid. The reason? Because the kaf is a pronoun of the addressee, a pronoun of the present, yes, so it is not permissible for it to be a substitute from the pronoun of the present. And the apparent meaning of his words, fine, let us now look at the implication of his words: Is it permissible to replace the explicit name from the pronoun of the absent, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible, and the author himself gave an example of it, saying:
"Like hitting him, Khalid":
So Khalid is a substitute for the pronoun, which is a pronoun of absence, and it is known from this that it is permissible to replace the explicit from the explicit, yes, and is it so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"Take arrows, a mudd": So "arrows" is explicit and "a mudd" is also explicit, fine, and it is known from his words that it is not permissible to replace the explicit from the pronoun of the speaker, because it is a pronoun of the present, or not?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : What is an example?! You say: "I honored me, Muhammad," it is not valid if Muhammad is a substitute for the ya. And it is known from his words that it is permissible to replace a pronoun from a pronoun, is it? Is it permissible to replace a pronoun from a pronoun?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is its example? Is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : This, yes.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Like the saying of the poet... the well-known one.
The Shaykh : They say that the correct view is that it is not a substitute, but rather an emphasis, and this is the correct view, meaning the pronoun with the pronoun does not become a substitute but becomes an emphasis, yes, fine, he said: Do not replace it except in three cases:
"Except what encompassing clarity revealed":
This is one, and what is the meaning of "encompassing clarity"? It means except what revealed encompassing, i.e., a detail indicating generality, yes, so that what you replaced is beneficial for encompassing and comprehensiveness, from something that may or may not be comprehensive, the substitute indicates encompassing and comprehensiveness from something that may encompass and may not, this is one. An example of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
to be for us a festival for the first of us and the last of us
تكون لنا عيدًا لأولنا وآخرناFor our first and our last
لأولنا وآخرناFor our first and our last
لأولنا وآخرناFor us
تكون لناFor our first and our last
لأولنا وآخرناThe student: It indicated encompassing.
The Shaykh : It indicated encompassing and comprehensiveness, meaning for all of us, for all of us, if someone said: This does not indicate encompassing and comprehensiveness, because he said:
For our first and our last
لأولنا وآخرناWe say: This is included in it, because mentioning the two ends includes the middle, because they encompass it and differ from it, so it indicates encompassing and comprehensiveness, this is one.