Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it, and it may precede if the intention is clear."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it", whether it is the subject or the object. What is restricted by illa must be postponed, and what is restricted by inna ma must be postponed. An example of the first is: "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar"; it must be postponed because it is restricted by illa. Likewise, if you say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," the phrase "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar" means "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar," so we must postpone...
The student: What do we postpone?
The Shaykh : We postpone the thing in which the restriction is made, whether it is the subject or the object. "Inna ma Zayd ate the pear," we must postpone Zayd, so the thing in which the restriction is made must be postponed. For this reason, he said: "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it". This is also one of the places where the subject or the object must be postponed.
The questioner : Meaning, the one after illa is always the thing in which the restriction is made?
The Shaykh : It is the thing in which the restriction is made. The one after illa is always the thing in which the restriction is made, and the one after inna ma is always the restricted thing. So if you say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," what is the restricted thing?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : And the thing in which the restriction is made?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : Because you say "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar." Now, what if it were the reverse: "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd"? We postpone 'Umar because he is the subject, because what is it?
The student: Restricted.
The Shaykh : Restricted in it. The difference between saying "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd" and "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar" is clear. "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd," meaning: what is its meaning?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, the thing in which the restriction is made is the last one, meaning: "Zayd did not strike 'Umar except." And if you reverse it and say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," then its meaning is that Zayd did not strike except?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : Except 'Umar. So there is a difference between them, and the summary that clarifies the meaning for you is that inna ma is followed by the restricted thing, and illa is followed by?
The student: The thing in which the restriction is made.
The Shaykh : The thing in which the restriction is made. So if there is a restriction, then the thing in which the restriction is made must be postponed. For this reason, he said: "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it". This is what Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) held regarding the equivalence between restriction by inna ma and restriction by illa. And some scholars said that what is restricted by illa may be brought forward, because what follows illa is the thing in which the restriction is made, whether it is brought forward or postponed. So it is permissible to say: "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar," here we postponed what? We brought forward? The thing in which the restriction is made, and that is permissible. It appears that if we were to learn the German language, it would be easier than this for you!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear? Good. First, the rule: If there is a restriction, there must be a restricted thing and a thing in which the restriction is made. So what is the restricted thing and what is the thing in which the restriction is made? We say: What follows inna ma is the restricted thing, and what follows illa is the thing in which the restriction is made. So if you say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," the thing in which the restriction is made? 'Umar, and the restricted thing is Zayd, meaning: Zayd did not strike except 'Umar. Now, the thing in which the restriction is made must be the last one. Did you understand? Due to his saying: "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it". And it is not permissible to bring this forward, which is what Ibn Malik held, and that there is no difference between illa and inna ma, because confusion arises. But others held that if the restriction is by illa, it is permissible to bring it forward, because what follows illa is?
The student: The thing in which the restriction is made.
The Shaykh : The thing in which the restriction is made, in any case. And on this basis, it is permissible to say "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar," unlike inna ma, because confusion arises in any case. And this opinion is more correct than the opinion of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), which is that it is permissible to bring it forward, whether it is the subject or the object, if the restriction is by illa, because there is no confusion in it.
"And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it, and it may precede if the intention is clear"
"It may precede if the intention is clear," meaning: If we know the thing in which the restriction is made, then it is permissible for it to precede. And this is only realized by what? By the fact that the restriction is by illa. As for inna ma, it is difficult. And even so, it is possible if you say: "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd," and you intend to say that 'Umar is the thing in which the restriction is made, it is said: It is not possible for what follows inna ma to be the thing in which the restriction is made. And on this basis, his saying: "And it may precede", this is specific to what?
The student: To illa.
The student: What do we postpone?
The Shaykh : We postpone the thing in which the restriction is made, whether it is the subject or the object. "Inna ma Zayd ate the pear," we must postpone Zayd, so the thing in which the restriction is made must be postponed. For this reason, he said: "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it". This is also one of the places where the subject or the object must be postponed.
The questioner : Meaning, the one after illa is always the thing in which the restriction is made?
The Shaykh : It is the thing in which the restriction is made. The one after illa is always the thing in which the restriction is made, and the one after inna ma is always the restricted thing. So if you say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," what is the restricted thing?
The student: Zayd.
The Shaykh : And the thing in which the restriction is made?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : Because you say "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar." Now, what if it were the reverse: "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd"? We postpone 'Umar because he is the subject, because what is it?
The student: Restricted.
The Shaykh : Restricted in it. The difference between saying "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd" and "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar" is clear. "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd," meaning: what is its meaning?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, the thing in which the restriction is made is the last one, meaning: "Zayd did not strike 'Umar except." And if you reverse it and say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," then its meaning is that Zayd did not strike except?
The student: 'Umar.
The Shaykh : Except 'Umar. So there is a difference between them, and the summary that clarifies the meaning for you is that inna ma is followed by the restricted thing, and illa is followed by?
The student: The thing in which the restriction is made.
The Shaykh : The thing in which the restriction is made. So if there is a restriction, then the thing in which the restriction is made must be postponed. For this reason, he said: "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it". This is what Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) held regarding the equivalence between restriction by inna ma and restriction by illa. And some scholars said that what is restricted by illa may be brought forward, because what follows illa is the thing in which the restriction is made, whether it is brought forward or postponed. So it is permissible to say: "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar," here we postponed what? We brought forward? The thing in which the restriction is made, and that is permissible. It appears that if we were to learn the German language, it would be easier than this for you!
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear? Good. First, the rule: If there is a restriction, there must be a restricted thing and a thing in which the restriction is made. So what is the restricted thing and what is the thing in which the restriction is made? We say: What follows inna ma is the restricted thing, and what follows illa is the thing in which the restriction is made. So if you say: "Inna ma Zayd struck 'Umar," the thing in which the restriction is made? 'Umar, and the restricted thing is Zayd, meaning: Zayd did not strike except 'Umar. Now, the thing in which the restriction is made must be the last one. Did you understand? Due to his saying: "And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it". And it is not permissible to bring this forward, which is what Ibn Malik held, and that there is no difference between illa and inna ma, because confusion arises. But others held that if the restriction is by illa, it is permissible to bring it forward, because what follows illa is?
The student: The thing in which the restriction is made.
The Shaykh : The thing in which the restriction is made, in any case. And on this basis, it is permissible to say "Zayd did not strike except 'Umar," unlike inna ma, because confusion arises in any case. And this opinion is more correct than the opinion of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), which is that it is permissible to bring it forward, whether it is the subject or the object, if the restriction is by illa, because there is no confusion in it.
"And what is restricted by illa or inna ma, postpone *** it, and it may precede if the intention is clear"
"It may precede if the intention is clear," meaning: If we know the thing in which the restriction is made, then it is permissible for it to precede. And this is only realized by what? By the fact that the restriction is by illa. As for inna ma, it is difficult. And even so, it is possible if you say: "Inna ma 'Umar struck Zayd," and you intend to say that 'Umar is the thing in which the restriction is made, it is said: It is not possible for what follows inna ma to be the thing in which the restriction is made. And on this basis, his saying: "And it may precede", this is specific to what?
The student: To illa.