Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And make it accusative for postponement, and bring one *** of them as if it were without an addition."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And make it accusative for postponement" means: if the exceptions are postponed after the excluded item:
"And make it accusative for postponement, and bring one *** of them as if it were without an addition"
If the exceptions are postponed after the excluded item, and there is a complete negation, then you make all of them accusative; make the exceptions accusative except for one of them. For that one, you treat it as "as if it were without an addition" "as if it were without an addition", meaning: as if the exceptions did not exceed one. The exceptions did not exceed one. And we have learned previously that if the sentence is a complete negation, two options are permissible for the excluded item: following (ittiba') and making it accusative on the basis of exception. Which is better?
The student: Following (ittiba').
The Shaykh : Following (ittiba'), the better is following (ittiba'), which is substitution (ibdal). The better is following (ittiba') except when the excluded item is disconnected, in which case making it accusative is obligatory, and following (ittiba') is permissible with the Banu Tamim. Or have you forgotten this?
The student: "And with Tamim, substitution occurred"
The Shaykh : Yes, "And with Tamim, substitution occurred". Is the concept clear now, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the exceptions are repeated and the excluded item precedes them, then one of them is treated as if it were not with the others, as if it were without an addition. Ibn Malik says "as if it were without an addition". One of them is treated as if it were without an addition, and the rest?
The student: They are made accusative.
The Shaykh : They are made accusative. That is why he said "And make it accusative for postponement". So what is the difference if the exceptions precede and if they are postponed? The difference between them is that if they precede, making them accusative is obligatory in all cases; making them accusative is obligatory in all cases for all of them. If they are postponed, all are made accusative except?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : Except one of them, which is treated as if it were not with the others, treated as if it were without an addition. Yes, good. Is the concept clear now? Let us take examples: "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid?"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good. "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid." Is this permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but it is the weaker position. It is permissible, but it is the weaker position. "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid?"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is valid, and it is the stronger position. It is the stronger position because one is treated as if it were not with the others, and substitution (ibdal) is stronger. So we say: "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid." Is this correct?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Good. And what about Ghanim with us? "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid?"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is valid and the stronger position. It is the stronger position because substitution (ibdal) is stronger. Substitution (ibdal) is stronger.
"Choose *** following what is connected"
Complete?
The student: Complete.
The Shaykh : Good. "The men did not stand except a donkey, except Bakr, except Khalid?"
The student: Making it accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : "The men did not stand except a donkey, except Bakr, except Khalid?"
The student: An error.
The Shaykh : It is incorrect according to the language of the Hijazis, because the exception is disconnected, and making it accusative is obligatory. According to the language of the Hijazis, it is incorrect. Is it permissible with some of the Banu Tamim?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, although the stronger position with the Banu Tamim is?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : And based on this, we say: "The men did not stand except a donkey, except Bakr, except Khalid," and otherwise?
The student: It is valid. Good, he gave his example:
"And make it accusative for postponement, and bring one *** of them as if it were without an addition"
If the exceptions are postponed after the excluded item, and there is a complete negation, then you make all of them accusative; make the exceptions accusative except for one of them. For that one, you treat it as "as if it were without an addition" "as if it were without an addition", meaning: as if the exceptions did not exceed one. The exceptions did not exceed one. And we have learned previously that if the sentence is a complete negation, two options are permissible for the excluded item: following (ittiba') and making it accusative on the basis of exception. Which is better?
The student: Following (ittiba').
The Shaykh : Following (ittiba'), the better is following (ittiba'), which is substitution (ibdal). The better is following (ittiba') except when the excluded item is disconnected, in which case making it accusative is obligatory, and following (ittiba') is permissible with the Banu Tamim. Or have you forgotten this?
The student: "And with Tamim, substitution occurred"
The Shaykh : Yes, "And with Tamim, substitution occurred". Is the concept clear now, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If the exceptions are repeated and the excluded item precedes them, then one of them is treated as if it were not with the others, as if it were without an addition. Ibn Malik says "as if it were without an addition". One of them is treated as if it were without an addition, and the rest?
The student: They are made accusative.
The Shaykh : They are made accusative. That is why he said "And make it accusative for postponement". So what is the difference if the exceptions precede and if they are postponed? The difference between them is that if they precede, making them accusative is obligatory in all cases; making them accusative is obligatory in all cases for all of them. If they are postponed, all are made accusative except?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : Except one of them, which is treated as if it were not with the others, treated as if it were without an addition. Yes, good. Is the concept clear now? Let us take examples: "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid?"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Good. "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid." Is this permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but it is the weaker position. It is permissible, but it is the weaker position. "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid?"
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is valid, and it is the stronger position. It is the stronger position because one is treated as if it were not with the others, and substitution (ibdal) is stronger. So we say: "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid." Is this correct?
The student: It is correct.
The Shaykh : Good. And what about Ghanim with us? "The men did not stand except Zayd, except 'Umar, except Khalid?"
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : It is valid and the stronger position. It is the stronger position because substitution (ibdal) is stronger. Substitution (ibdal) is stronger.
"Choose *** following what is connected"
Complete?
The student: Complete.
The Shaykh : Good. "The men did not stand except a donkey, except Bakr, except Khalid?"
The student: Making it accusative is obligatory.
The Shaykh : "The men did not stand except a donkey, except Bakr, except Khalid?"
The student: An error.
The Shaykh : It is incorrect according to the language of the Hijazis, because the exception is disconnected, and making it accusative is obligatory. According to the language of the Hijazis, it is incorrect. Is it permissible with some of the Banu Tamim?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, although the stronger position with the Banu Tamim is?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : And based on this, we say: "The men did not stand except a donkey, except Bakr, except Khalid," and otherwise?
The student: It is valid. Good, he gave his example: