Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "In one of what is excepted by illa, the effect is left *** and nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Leave the effect of it on one of what is excepted by illa. He says: The one that is affected by the preceding governor is one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case. For example: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran" (No one stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Bakr). "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran." First, is the sentence empty, and illa is not?
The student: It is empty.
The Shaykh : It is empty, because "yaqum" has not yet completed its subject; the subject has not come yet. "Lam yaqum illa Zayd." Okay, how many times did you repeat illa?
The student: Three times.
The Shaykh : Three times: illa Zayd, illa 'Amran, illa Bakran. You repeated it three times. Is it cancelled, or is illa not cancelled? I mean, is this second one an emphasis of the first? Or is each one independent?
The student: Each one is independent.
The Shaykh : Each one is independent, so it is not cancelled. The governor before illa, Ibn Malik says: Do not leave it to operate except on one of the three. "Leave the effect of the governor" On how many?
The student: On one.
The Shaykh :"In one of what is excepted by illa" Okay, only one of these three is affected by the governor, and the rest? He said: "And nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case" So one is subjected to the governor before illa, one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case. The rest must be in the accusative case. The example is the same one I mentioned: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran." Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible to say "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amrun illa Bakrun"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Is it permissible to say "Lam yaqum illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Putting all of them in the accusative case is not possible, because the empty governor requires what comes after illa to be considered as?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : And the subject is in the nominative case. So, "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa Bakran illa 'Amran," is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Okay, "Lam yaqum illa Zaydan illa Bakrun illa 'Amran"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ... is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the second one is in the nominative case. And he says "In one of what is excepted by illa" He did not say the first one; he said only one. The first one, or illa and the others. Okay, "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakrun"?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "In one of what is excepted by illa" Here?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"And nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case" Okay, "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: It is permissible, ... it is not permissible, ... the first one ...
The Shaykh : Okay, wait a moment, wait a moment. I am saying it a second time: "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct. Why? Because "ra'aytu" now requires what comes after illa to be considered as?
The student: Maf'ul (passive).
The Shaykh : An object, and the object is in the accusative case. But the grammatical analysis differs. "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan, illa Bakran illa 'Amran." I say: "Ma" is a negation, "ra'aytu" is a verb and its subject, and "illa" is a tool of restriction. "Zaydan" is the object of "ra'aytu." "Illa 'Amran" is a tool of exception, and "'Amran" is in the accusative case due to exception. "Illa Bakran" is a tool of exception, and "Bakran" is in the accusative case due to exception. Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... 'Amran?
The Shaykh : 'Amran is in the accusative case due to exception.
The student: As what?
The Shaykh : As an exception.
The student: As a subject or?
The Shaykh : As an exception. "What you did not except is in the accusative case only with completeness" And now the sentence is complete when we said: "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan," like my saying: "Ra'aytu Zaydan." So the sentence is complete now.
The student: And the grammatical analysis is complete, meaning?
The Shaykh : The grammatical analysis is complete, the grammatical analysis is complete.
The student: Second object.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Second object, is that not correct?
The Shaykh : No, it is not correct. Okay, now "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran," is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Okay, why was it obligatory to put 'Amr and Bakr in the accusative case? Because what came before it was complete and was affirmative in reality. "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun" is in the position of my saying: "Qama Zaydun" (Zayd stood up). "Qama Zaydun," did you understand? So the sentence is actually complete and affirmative. It is complete because it completed the governor and the governed. It is affirmative because the negation was negated by illa. The negation of "Lam yaqum" was negated by illa. For this reason, he says: "And nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case" So it is obligatory to put what comes after it in the accusative case. If I said: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amr" and you make 'Amr a substitute for Zayd, we say: It is not permissible, because "What you did not except is in the accusative case only with completeness" I don't know, are we talking about the Arabic language or what?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear, Ahmad?
The student: We want to say that all of them stood up.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: All of them stood up.
The Shaykh : You have to give them something other than this. If you want to make them all standing, say "Qama Zaydun wa 'Amrun wa Bakrun" (Zayd, 'Amr, and Bakr stood up), and we are done.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Three times ...
The Shaykh : In any case, it is not our concern, this is a matter of reality. So what is the sentence now? If illa is repeated and the second one is an emphasis of the first, what is the ruling? If illa is repeated and the second one is an emphasis of the first?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, the question is: If illa is repeated and the second one is an emphasis of the first?
The student: The second one is cancelled.
The Shaykh : The second one is cancelled. The second one is cancelled, and what comes after it is analyzed?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : As if it does not exist. Okay, if you repeat it for other than emphasis? Then either the governor is empty for what comes after it, or it is not empty. If it is empty, it operates on one of the exceptions and puts the rest in the accusative case?
The student: Due to exception.
The Shaykh : Due to exception. It operates on only one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case due to exception. And the example is: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran," "Lam yaqum illa Zaydan illa 'Amrun illa Bakran," is that correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa"?
The student: Illa Bakrun.
The Shaykh : Illa Bakrun. Now Bakr is fixed in the nominative case, here, because it is necessary that what comes before it operates on one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case due to exception. "In one of what is excepted by illa" Okay, "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : How do you say it is correct, and they are all in the accusative case now?
The student: The governor operates ...
The Shaykh : But we put them all in the accusative case now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We say we put them all in the accusative case, but the governor differed among them. One of them must be the object of "ra'aytu." One of them is the object of "ra'aytu," either the first, the second, or the third, and two?
The student: Due to exception.
The Shaykh : In the accusative case due to exception, it is necessary in the grammatical analysis.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Does he mention the two governed words, or is it estimated?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "Ma dhannatu illa Zaydan qayman illa 'Amran illa Bakran."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How? What?
The student: Ma akramtu illa Zayd.
The Shaykh : Ma akramtu?
The student: Yes...
The Shaykh : Zayd is the subject?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... All right.
The student: It is empty.
The Shaykh : It is empty, because "yaqum" has not yet completed its subject; the subject has not come yet. "Lam yaqum illa Zayd." Okay, how many times did you repeat illa?
The student: Three times.
The Shaykh : Three times: illa Zayd, illa 'Amran, illa Bakran. You repeated it three times. Is it cancelled, or is illa not cancelled? I mean, is this second one an emphasis of the first? Or is each one independent?
The student: Each one is independent.
The Shaykh : Each one is independent, so it is not cancelled. The governor before illa, Ibn Malik says: Do not leave it to operate except on one of the three. "Leave the effect of the governor" On how many?
The student: On one.
The Shaykh :"In one of what is excepted by illa" Okay, only one of these three is affected by the governor, and the rest? He said: "And nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case" So one is subjected to the governor before illa, one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case. The rest must be in the accusative case. The example is the same one I mentioned: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran." Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible to say "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amrun illa Bakrun"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Is it permissible to say "Lam yaqum illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Putting all of them in the accusative case is not possible, because the empty governor requires what comes after illa to be considered as?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : And the subject is in the nominative case. So, "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa Bakran illa 'Amran," is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Okay, "Lam yaqum illa Zaydan illa Bakrun illa 'Amran"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ... is in the accusative case.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the second one is in the nominative case. And he says "In one of what is excepted by illa" He did not say the first one; he said only one. The first one, or illa and the others. Okay, "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakrun"?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "In one of what is excepted by illa" Here?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"And nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case" Okay, "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: It is permissible, ... it is not permissible, ... the first one ...
The Shaykh : Okay, wait a moment, wait a moment. I am saying it a second time: "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct. Why? Because "ra'aytu" now requires what comes after illa to be considered as?
The student: Maf'ul (passive).
The Shaykh : An object, and the object is in the accusative case. But the grammatical analysis differs. "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan, illa Bakran illa 'Amran." I say: "Ma" is a negation, "ra'aytu" is a verb and its subject, and "illa" is a tool of restriction. "Zaydan" is the object of "ra'aytu." "Illa 'Amran" is a tool of exception, and "'Amran" is in the accusative case due to exception. "Illa Bakran" is a tool of exception, and "Bakran" is in the accusative case due to exception. Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... 'Amran?
The Shaykh : 'Amran is in the accusative case due to exception.
The student: As what?
The Shaykh : As an exception.
The student: As a subject or?
The Shaykh : As an exception. "What you did not except is in the accusative case only with completeness" And now the sentence is complete when we said: "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan," like my saying: "Ra'aytu Zaydan." So the sentence is complete now.
The student: And the grammatical analysis is complete, meaning?
The Shaykh : The grammatical analysis is complete, the grammatical analysis is complete.
The student: Second object.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Second object, is that not correct?
The Shaykh : No, it is not correct. Okay, now "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran," is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Okay, why was it obligatory to put 'Amr and Bakr in the accusative case? Because what came before it was complete and was affirmative in reality. "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun" is in the position of my saying: "Qama Zaydun" (Zayd stood up). "Qama Zaydun," did you understand? So the sentence is actually complete and affirmative. It is complete because it completed the governor and the governed. It is affirmative because the negation was negated by illa. The negation of "Lam yaqum" was negated by illa. For this reason, he says: "And nothing else is a substitute for its accusative case" So it is obligatory to put what comes after it in the accusative case. If I said: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amr" and you make 'Amr a substitute for Zayd, we say: It is not permissible, because "What you did not except is in the accusative case only with completeness" I don't know, are we talking about the Arabic language or what?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear?
The student: It is clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear, Ahmad?
The student: We want to say that all of them stood up.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: All of them stood up.
The Shaykh : You have to give them something other than this. If you want to make them all standing, say "Qama Zaydun wa 'Amrun wa Bakrun" (Zayd, 'Amr, and Bakr stood up), and we are done.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Three times ...
The Shaykh : In any case, it is not our concern, this is a matter of reality. So what is the sentence now? If illa is repeated and the second one is an emphasis of the first, what is the ruling? If illa is repeated and the second one is an emphasis of the first?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, the question is: If illa is repeated and the second one is an emphasis of the first?
The student: The second one is cancelled.
The Shaykh : The second one is cancelled. The second one is cancelled, and what comes after it is analyzed?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : As if it does not exist. Okay, if you repeat it for other than emphasis? Then either the governor is empty for what comes after it, or it is not empty. If it is empty, it operates on one of the exceptions and puts the rest in the accusative case?
The student: Due to exception.
The Shaykh : Due to exception. It operates on only one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case due to exception. And the example is: "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa Bakran," "Lam yaqum illa Zaydan illa 'Amrun illa Bakran," is that correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : "Lam yaqum illa Zaydun illa 'Amran illa"?
The student: Illa Bakrun.
The Shaykh : Illa Bakrun. Now Bakr is fixed in the nominative case, here, because it is necessary that what comes before it operates on one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case due to exception. "In one of what is excepted by illa" Okay, "Ma ra'aytu illa Zaydan illa 'Amran illa Bakran"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : How do you say it is correct, and they are all in the accusative case now?
The student: The governor operates ...
The Shaykh : But we put them all in the accusative case now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We say we put them all in the accusative case, but the governor differed among them. One of them must be the object of "ra'aytu." One of them is the object of "ra'aytu," either the first, the second, or the third, and two?
The student: Due to exception.
The Shaykh : In the accusative case due to exception, it is necessary in the grammatical analysis.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Does he mention the two governed words, or is it estimated?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "Ma dhannatu illa Zaydan qayman illa 'Amran illa Bakran."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How? What?
The student: Ma akramtu illa Zayd.
The Shaykh : Ma akramtu?
The student: Yes...
The Shaykh : Zayd is the subject?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... All right.