Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Kullum yafu illa amrun illa 'Ali *** wa hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Kullum yafu illa amrun illa 'Ali" They did not fulfill; what is being negated?
The student: Fulfillment.
The Shaykh :"Illa amrun illa 'Ali" And he should have said: illa 'Aliya, but what prevented him?
The student: The rhyme.
The Shaykh : The meter, because is "illa amrun illa 'Ali" permissible or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because it is not treated as if there were no one else with him except only one, and now he said "illa amrun," so what if we said: "Kullum yafu illa amruna illa 'Ali"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is correct, "illa amruna illa 'Ali," and we understood from the author's words that the first one should be the one followed?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first one, that the first one should be the one followed, we understood from the author's words that the first one should be the one followed, why did we understand that? Because he could, without breaking the verse, say: "Kullum yafu illa amruna illa 'Ali," is that not acceptable?
The student: It is acceptable.
The Shaykh : It is acceptable without breaking it, so when he said: "illa amrun illa 'Ali" we understood from this, and this is an important benefit we took from the example, because when one of them is treated as a singular, it is better to make it?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first one, for example, I say: "Ma qama al-qawm illa Zaydan, illa Bakrun, illa Khalidan..." Bakr is the follower, you brought it forward, you say: "Ma qama al-qawm illa Bakrun, illa Zaydan, illa 'Umaran," understood, everyone? We took this from Ibn Malik's example, as he did not say "Kullum yafu illa amruna illa 'Ali," but rather said: "Kannama lam yafu illa amrun illa 'Ali"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : There is no doubt, because he should not follow the language of Rabi'ah, which is weaker because it does not stop with an alif on the accusative, because the standard language is to stop on the accusative?
The student: With an alif.
The Shaykh : Illa 'Aliya, yes, now, if these exceptions are repeated, do they differ in grammatical case or not?
The student: They differ.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: They differ.
The Shaykh : "Ma qama al-qawm illa Zaydun, illa 'Umaran, illa Bakran," they differ in grammatical case, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do they differ in meaning?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The author said: "wa hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal" meaning: that the exception applies to all, in the sense that, although in grammatical case you make one of them different from the others, in meaning they are one, so if you say: "Ma qama al-qawm illa Zaydun, illa Bakran, illa 'Umaran," all three?
The student: They did not stand.
The Shaykh : They did not stand, huh?
The student: They stood.
The Shaykh : No, they stood, all three stood, all three stood, and this is the meaning of his saying: "hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal" and this is also his saying: "hukm al-awwal" that he is indicating that it is better for the one being replaced?
The student: To be a follower.
The Shaykh : To be the first one, that the follower should be the first one, not the middle or the last, the summary now is - there is confusion in it - and it appears its use in the Arabic language is rare, but it is simple and understandable, first: if "illa" is repeated for emphasis, what is the ruling? This is the first section, if it is repeated for emphasis, the second one is nullified, and the nullified one has no ruling at all:
"Wa algh illa dhat tawkid kalla *** tamarrah bihim illa al-fata illa al-'ala".
The second: if it is repeated for other than emphasis and it is emptied, then it is obligatory to apply the operator to one of the exceptions and put the rest in the accusative, is that so or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now the third, if it is repeated for other than emphasis and without emptying, and without emptying, and in this third section: either the exceptions precede or they follow, if the exceptions precede, what is obligatory? It is obligatory to put them all in the accusative, for this reason the author said:
"Wa dun tafrigh ma'a al-taqaddum *** nasb al-jami' ahkam bihi wa talamam"
And the second situation in the third section: that the exceptions follow, then it is obligatory to give one of them the case it would have if it were alone, and the rest must be put in the accusative, now this is in grammatical case, in meaning, do the exceptions differ?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, for this reason he said: "wa hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal" The grammatical case, God willing, on the coming night.
The student: Fulfillment.
The Shaykh :"Illa amrun illa 'Ali" And he should have said: illa 'Aliya, but what prevented him?
The student: The rhyme.
The Shaykh : The meter, because is "illa amrun illa 'Ali" permissible or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because it is not treated as if there were no one else with him except only one, and now he said "illa amrun," so what if we said: "Kullum yafu illa amruna illa 'Ali"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is correct, "illa amruna illa 'Ali," and we understood from the author's words that the first one should be the one followed?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first one, that the first one should be the one followed, we understood from the author's words that the first one should be the one followed, why did we understand that? Because he could, without breaking the verse, say: "Kullum yafu illa amruna illa 'Ali," is that not acceptable?
The student: It is acceptable.
The Shaykh : It is acceptable without breaking it, so when he said: "illa amrun illa 'Ali" we understood from this, and this is an important benefit we took from the example, because when one of them is treated as a singular, it is better to make it?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first one, for example, I say: "Ma qama al-qawm illa Zaydan, illa Bakrun, illa Khalidan..." Bakr is the follower, you brought it forward, you say: "Ma qama al-qawm illa Bakrun, illa Zaydan, illa 'Umaran," understood, everyone? We took this from Ibn Malik's example, as he did not say "Kullum yafu illa amruna illa 'Ali," but rather said: "Kannama lam yafu illa amrun illa 'Ali"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : There is no doubt, because he should not follow the language of Rabi'ah, which is weaker because it does not stop with an alif on the accusative, because the standard language is to stop on the accusative?
The student: With an alif.
The Shaykh : Illa 'Aliya, yes, now, if these exceptions are repeated, do they differ in grammatical case or not?
The student: They differ.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: They differ.
The Shaykh : "Ma qama al-qawm illa Zaydun, illa 'Umaran, illa Bakran," they differ in grammatical case, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do they differ in meaning?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : The author said: "wa hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal" meaning: that the exception applies to all, in the sense that, although in grammatical case you make one of them different from the others, in meaning they are one, so if you say: "Ma qama al-qawm illa Zaydun, illa Bakran, illa 'Umaran," all three?
The student: They did not stand.
The Shaykh : They did not stand, huh?
The student: They stood.
The Shaykh : No, they stood, all three stood, all three stood, and this is the meaning of his saying: "hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal" and this is also his saying: "hukm al-awwal" that he is indicating that it is better for the one being replaced?
The student: To be a follower.
The Shaykh : To be the first one, that the follower should be the first one, not the middle or the last, the summary now is - there is confusion in it - and it appears its use in the Arabic language is rare, but it is simple and understandable, first: if "illa" is repeated for emphasis, what is the ruling? This is the first section, if it is repeated for emphasis, the second one is nullified, and the nullified one has no ruling at all:
"Wa algh illa dhat tawkid kalla *** tamarrah bihim illa al-fata illa al-'ala".
The second: if it is repeated for other than emphasis and it is emptied, then it is obligatory to apply the operator to one of the exceptions and put the rest in the accusative, is that so or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now the third, if it is repeated for other than emphasis and without emptying, and without emptying, and in this third section: either the exceptions precede or they follow, if the exceptions precede, what is obligatory? It is obligatory to put them all in the accusative, for this reason the author said:
"Wa dun tafrigh ma'a al-taqaddum *** nasb al-jami' ahkam bihi wa talamam"
And the second situation in the third section: that the exceptions follow, then it is obligatory to give one of them the case it would have if it were alone, and the rest must be put in the accusative, now this is in grammatical case, in meaning, do the exceptions differ?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, for this reason he said: "wa hukmuhā fi al-qasd hukm al-awwal" The grammatical case, God willing, on the coming night.