Review of the verses on exception.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is not free from either the preceding being emptied or not being emptied. I hope you pay attention, everyone. So, what is the first division?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is either for emphasis or for other than emphasis. If it is for emphasis, it has no ruling and no grammatical effect; it is cancelled. If it is for other than emphasis, it does not escape two states: The first state is that what comes before it is empty, meaning: it has not taken its object. Empty means it has not taken its object, or it is not empty. This is derived from the author's words. He said: "With the emptying" This is the first section. "Leave the effect of the operator in one" Leave the effect. The effect: the object of "leave" is placed before it, meaning: so leave the effect of the operator. What is the operator?
The student: Except.
The Shaykh : The empty operator is "illa" (except) alone. The empty operator. The effect of it in one of those excepted by "illa." He says: The one who is affected by the preceding operator is one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case. Its example: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." First, is the speech empty or not?
The student: Empty.
The Shaykh : Empty, because "qama" (stood up) has not taken its subject. The subject has not come yet. "None stood up except Zayd." Good, you repeated "illa" how many times?
The student: Three times.
The Shaykh : Three times. "Illa Zayd, illa 'Umar, illa Bakr." You repeated it three times. Is it cancelled or not cancelled? Meaning, is this second one for 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 operator before "illa," Ibn Malik says: Do not let it operate except on one of the three. "Leave the effect of the operator in one" How many?
The student: In one.
The Shaykh :"In one of those excepted by illa" Good. Only one of these three is affected by the operator, and the rest? He said: "And none other is exempt from the accusative" So one is subjected to the operator before "illa." Only one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative. The rest must be in the accusative. The rest must be in the accusative. Its example is the same one I said: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible to say: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Is it permissible to say: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Putting all of them in the accusative is not possible, because the empty operator requires what comes after "illa" to be in the case of?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : And the subject is in the nominative case. So, "None stood up except Zayd, except Bakr, except 'Umar." Is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Good. "None stood up except Zayd, except Bakr, except 'Umar"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ... Accusative.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the second one is in the nominative case. And he says "In one of those excepted by illa" He did not say the first one. He said in one only. The first one or the other. Good. "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because Ibn Malik says, may Allah have mercy on him: "In one of those excepted by illa" Here?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"And none other is exempt from the accusative" Good. "I saw no one except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: It is permissible, ... it is not permissible, ... the first one ...
The Shaykh : Good, wait a moment, wait a moment. I say it a second time: "I saw no one except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct. Why? Because "ra'aytu" (I saw) now requires what comes after "illa" to be in the case of?
The student: Maf'ul (passive).
The Shaykh : The object, and the object is in the accusative case. But the grammatical analysis differs. "I saw no one except Zayd, except Bakr, except 'Umar." I say: "ma" (no) is a negation. "Ra'aytu" (I saw) is a verb and its subject. "Illa" (except) is a tool of restriction. "Zayd" is the object of "saw." "Illa 'Umar, illa" is a tool of exception. "'Umar" is in the accusative case due to exception. "Illa Bakr, illa" is a tool of exception. And "Bakr" is in the accusative case due to exception. Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... 'Umar?
The Shaykh : 'Umar is in the accusative case due to exception.
The student: In the case of?
The Shaykh : Due to exception.
The student: In the case of subject or?
The Shaykh : Due to exception. "What you excepted is in the accusative only when the sentence is complete" And now the sentence is complete when we said: "I saw no one except Zayd." Like my saying: "I saw Zayd." 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. Good, now "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." Is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good. Why was it obligatory to put 'Umar and Bakr in the accusative? Because what came before it was complete and was affirmative in reality. "None stood up except Zayd" is in the position of my saying: "Zayd stood up." "Zayd stood up," did you understand? So the sentence is actually complete and affirmative. Complete because it completed the operator and the object. Affirmative because the negation was negated by "illa." The negation of "none stood up" was negated by "illa." For this reason he says: "And none other is exempt from the accusative" So it is obligatory to put what comes after it in the accusative. If I said: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar" and you make 'Umar a substitute for Zayd, we say: It is not permissible, because "What you excepted is in the accusative only when the sentence is complete" I don't know, are we speaking in Arabic 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: "Zayd, 'Umar, 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 now, what is the speech? If "illa" is repeated and the second one is for emphasis of the first, what is the ruling? If "illa" is repeated and the second one is for emphasis of the first?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, the question is: If "illa" is repeated and the second one is for 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. Good, if you repeated it for other than emphasis? Then either the operator 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?
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: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." Is that correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except?"
The student: Except Bakr.
The Shaykh : Except Bakr. 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 those excepted by illa" Good. "I saw no one except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : How do you say it is correct while they are all in the accusative case now?
The student: The operator 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 operator differs among them. One of them must be the object of "saw." One of them is the object of "saw." 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 objects or does he estimate them?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : I did not think except Zayd to be standing, except 'Umar, except Bakr.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How? What?
The student: I did not honor except Zayd.
The Shaykh : I did not honor?
The student: Yes...
The Shaykh : Zayd is the subject?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... All right.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, that is not correct. "What a noble one is Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." If you want to make 'Umar the object of "noble," you say: "What a noble one is Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." You may place it before, or leave it as an exception; either way, it is not valid. This construction is an error.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Is there no difference?
The Shaykh : There is no difference, because it is as if you had postponed the subject and advanced the exception, just as if you said: "The people stood up, except Zayd." The statement is the same.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Two minutes left.
The student: ... Is it permissible?
The Shaykh : What?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is either for emphasis or for other than emphasis. If it is for emphasis, it has no ruling and no grammatical effect; it is cancelled. If it is for other than emphasis, it does not escape two states: The first state is that what comes before it is empty, meaning: it has not taken its object. Empty means it has not taken its object, or it is not empty. This is derived from the author's words. He said: "With the emptying" This is the first section. "Leave the effect of the operator in one" Leave the effect. The effect: the object of "leave" is placed before it, meaning: so leave the effect of the operator. What is the operator?
The student: Except.
The Shaykh : The empty operator is "illa" (except) alone. The empty operator. The effect of it in one of those excepted by "illa." He says: The one who is affected by the preceding operator is one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative case. Its example: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." First, is the speech empty or not?
The student: Empty.
The Shaykh : Empty, because "qama" (stood up) has not taken its subject. The subject has not come yet. "None stood up except Zayd." Good, you repeated "illa" how many times?
The student: Three times.
The Shaykh : Three times. "Illa Zayd, illa 'Umar, illa Bakr." You repeated it three times. Is it cancelled or not cancelled? Meaning, is this second one for 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 operator before "illa," Ibn Malik says: Do not let it operate except on one of the three. "Leave the effect of the operator in one" How many?
The student: In one.
The Shaykh :"In one of those excepted by illa" Good. Only one of these three is affected by the operator, and the rest? He said: "And none other is exempt from the accusative" So one is subjected to the operator before "illa." Only one of the exceptions, and the rest are in the accusative. The rest must be in the accusative. The rest must be in the accusative. Its example is the same one I said: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible to say: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Is it permissible to say: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Putting all of them in the accusative is not possible, because the empty operator requires what comes after "illa" to be in the case of?
The student: Active subject.
The Shaykh : And the subject is in the nominative case. So, "None stood up except Zayd, except Bakr, except 'Umar." Is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct. Good. "None stood up except Zayd, except Bakr, except 'Umar"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Correct.
The student: ... Accusative.
The Shaykh : Yes, but the second one is in the nominative case. And he says "In one of those excepted by illa" He did not say the first one. He said in one only. The first one or the other. Good. "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because Ibn Malik says, may Allah have mercy on him: "In one of those excepted by illa" Here?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh :"And none other is exempt from the accusative" Good. "I saw no one except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: It is permissible, ... it is not permissible, ... the first one ...
The Shaykh : Good, wait a moment, wait a moment. I say it a second time: "I saw no one except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct. Why? Because "ra'aytu" (I saw) now requires what comes after "illa" to be in the case of?
The student: Maf'ul (passive).
The Shaykh : The object, and the object is in the accusative case. But the grammatical analysis differs. "I saw no one except Zayd, except Bakr, except 'Umar." I say: "ma" (no) is a negation. "Ra'aytu" (I saw) is a verb and its subject. "Illa" (except) is a tool of restriction. "Zayd" is the object of "saw." "Illa 'Umar, illa" is a tool of exception. "'Umar" is in the accusative case due to exception. "Illa Bakr, illa" is a tool of exception. And "Bakr" is in the accusative case due to exception. Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... 'Umar?
The Shaykh : 'Umar is in the accusative case due to exception.
The student: In the case of?
The Shaykh : Due to exception.
The student: In the case of subject or?
The Shaykh : Due to exception. "What you excepted is in the accusative only when the sentence is complete" And now the sentence is complete when we said: "I saw no one except Zayd." Like my saying: "I saw Zayd." 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. Good, now "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." Is that correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good. Why was it obligatory to put 'Umar and Bakr in the accusative? Because what came before it was complete and was affirmative in reality. "None stood up except Zayd" is in the position of my saying: "Zayd stood up." "Zayd stood up," did you understand? So the sentence is actually complete and affirmative. Complete because it completed the operator and the object. Affirmative because the negation was negated by "illa." The negation of "none stood up" was negated by "illa." For this reason he says: "And none other is exempt from the accusative" So it is obligatory to put what comes after it in the accusative. If I said: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar" and you make 'Umar a substitute for Zayd, we say: It is not permissible, because "What you excepted is in the accusative only when the sentence is complete" I don't know, are we speaking in Arabic 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: "Zayd, 'Umar, 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 now, what is the speech? If "illa" is repeated and the second one is for emphasis of the first, what is the ruling? If "illa" is repeated and the second one is for emphasis of the first?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, the question is: If "illa" is repeated and the second one is for 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. Good, if you repeated it for other than emphasis? Then either the operator 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?
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: "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." Is that correct?
The student: Correct
The Shaykh : "None stood up except Zayd, except 'Umar, except?"
The student: Except Bakr.
The Shaykh : Except Bakr. 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 those excepted by illa" Good. "I saw no one except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : How do you say it is correct while they are all in the accusative case now?
The student: The operator 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 operator differs among them. One of them must be the object of "saw." One of them is the object of "saw." 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 objects or does he estimate them?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : I did not think except Zayd to be standing, except 'Umar, except Bakr.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How? What?
The student: I did not honor except Zayd.
The Shaykh : I did not honor?
The student: Yes...
The Shaykh : Zayd is the subject?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... All right.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, that is not correct. "What a noble one is Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." If you want to make 'Umar the object of "noble," you say: "What a noble one is Zayd, except 'Umar, except Bakr." You may place it before, or leave it as an exception; either way, it is not valid. This construction is an error.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Is there no difference?
The Shaykh : There is no difference, because it is as if you had postponed the subject and advanced the exception, just as if you said: "The people stood up, except Zayd." The statement is the same.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Two minutes left.
The student: ... Is it permissible?
The Shaykh : What?