Clarification of the correct view regarding whether exceptions can be made from one another, or whether the exception is from what precedes it.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions.
We have previously discussed the ruling on exceptions when "except" is repeated. The last thing we said was that Ibn Malik states: "Their ruling in intent is like the ruling of the first," meaning that in affirmative exceptions, they are excluded, and in negative exceptions, they are included. For example, "No one stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Bakr." Is this...
The student: She is included.
The Shaykh : ...included? "No one stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr." Yes. "The people stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Khalid?"
The student: Excluded.
The Shaykh : So these are all excluded as well. The jurists and grammarians have mentioned issues in this context, and we do not know whether it is in the public interest to clarify them or not. The issue is that when exceptions are repeated, if it is possible to exclude some of them from others, some say that they are all exceptions from the first one, while others say that each one is an exception from the one before it. Each one is an exception from the one before it. The grammarians differ on this, and the jurists differ based on that. For example, you might say: "I have ten for him, except five, except three, except two, except one." "Except" was repeated, yes or no?
The student: It was repeated.
The Shaykh : And is it nullified or not nullified?
The student: Not nullified.
The Shaykh : Not nullified. How much does he owe now?
The student: He owes nothing.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The student: ... five ...
The Shaykh : Ten except five, except three, except two, except one?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, if we say ten except five.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : We take five, except three?
The student: Two remain.
The Shaykh : Two remain.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, if we say: we exclude one from the one before it, so we say: "I have ten for him, except five, except three, except two, except one." We exclude one from two...
The student: One remains.
The Shaykh : ... the last one. We exclude one from two?
The student: One remains.
The Shaykh : One remains. We exclude one from three?
The student: Two remain.
The Shaykh : Two remain. We exclude two from five?
The student: Three remain.
The Shaykh : Three remain. We exclude three from ten?
The student: Seven remain.
The Shaykh : Seven remain. So in this case, he owes seven. Is that clear, or did you not understand?
The student: We understood.
The Shaykh : The last group says that the exception is from what is adjacent to it, that each one is an exception from the one before it. "I have ten for him, except five, except three, except two, except one." Put it down now. According to this view, what do we do? We start from the last one. We start from the last one. We exclude the last one. The last one, except one, is an exception from two. What remains?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : We exclude one from three?
The student: Two remain.
The Shaykh : We exclude five from two?
The student: Three remain.
The Shaykh : Three remain. We exclude ten from them?
The student: Seven remain.
The Shaykh : Seven remain. And this is what the Hanbali jurists followed. This is what the Hanbali jurists followed: that each exception is an exception from the one before it, because that is the one adjacent to it. How... above. Okay, "I have ten for him, except five, except two." How much does he owe? Ten except five, except two?
The student: Seven, eight.
The Shaykh : Okay, let us take the first view. Let us take the first view that all exceptions are from the first one. Ten except five, except two. Five and two. The exceptions now are five and two.
The student: Seven.
The Shaykh : Seven, from ten?
The student: Three remain.
The Shaykh : Three remain. According to the second view: ten except five, except two. Two from five?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Three remain. Three from ten?
The student: Seven.
The Shaykh : Seven remain. Is there a clear difference or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Suppose the issue is in millions, for example. What is the difference between three million and seven million? What is the difference? Therefore, in truth, the stronger position is that each one is an exception from the one before it, if possible. As for "The people stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Bakr," it is not possible to exclude each one from the one before it, because each one is a distinct individual. However, Ibn Malik's statement: "Their ruling in intent is like the ruling of the first" is general. Being general implies that they are all exceptions from the first one, even if it is possible to exclude some of them from others. Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Is it present in the language?
The Shaykh : No, no. This is present in the speech of the jurists in the chapter of acknowledgment. This occurs in the chapter of acknowledgment. They may mention it, but it is limited in the chapter of divorce, not exceeding more than three.
The student: I have ten for him, except five, except two.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Except two.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: We take two from five.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Three remain, then we take three from ten.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... ten except five.
The Shaykh : Okay, except five, except two. That means: except five, minus two from it. He did not say "except five" and stop; he said "except five, except two." That means: except five, minus two from it. Okay, five minus two?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : So he excluded three from ten.
The student: It returns to his intention.
The Shaykh : We do not concern ourselves with his intention, because in the issue of acknowledgment, we take the apparent meaning of the wording. If he claims something contrary to the apparent meaning, and the one to whom the acknowledgment is made verifies it, we act on it; otherwise, we do not act on it.
The student: We specify the intention.
The Shaykh : No, the intention is not specified, because the reality of the matter is that this view is clearly stronger: each one is an exception from the one before it. Because... he says "except five, except three." Why did you not say "ten except eight"? What makes you say "except five, except three"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, it can be said: "except five, except three"... there is effort in the expression... for example, "except five," he mentioned that he paid something.
We have previously discussed the ruling on exceptions when "except" is repeated. The last thing we said was that Ibn Malik states: "Their ruling in intent is like the ruling of the first," meaning that in affirmative exceptions, they are excluded, and in negative exceptions, they are included. For example, "No one stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Bakr." Is this...
The student: She is included.
The Shaykh : ...included? "No one stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr." Yes. "The people stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Khalid?"
The student: Excluded.
The Shaykh : So these are all excluded as well. The jurists and grammarians have mentioned issues in this context, and we do not know whether it is in the public interest to clarify them or not. The issue is that when exceptions are repeated, if it is possible to exclude some of them from others, some say that they are all exceptions from the first one, while others say that each one is an exception from the one before it. Each one is an exception from the one before it. The grammarians differ on this, and the jurists differ based on that. For example, you might say: "I have ten for him, except five, except three, except two, except one." "Except" was repeated, yes or no?
The student: It was repeated.
The Shaykh : And is it nullified or not nullified?
The student: Not nullified.
The Shaykh : Not nullified. How much does he owe now?
The student: He owes nothing.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The student: ... five ...
The Shaykh : Ten except five, except three, except two, except one?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, if we say ten except five.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : We take five, except three?
The student: Two remain.
The Shaykh : Two remain.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Okay, if we say: we exclude one from the one before it, so we say: "I have ten for him, except five, except three, except two, except one." We exclude one from two...
The student: One remains.
The Shaykh : ... the last one. We exclude one from two?
The student: One remains.
The Shaykh : One remains. We exclude one from three?
The student: Two remain.
The Shaykh : Two remain. We exclude two from five?
The student: Three remain.
The Shaykh : Three remain. We exclude three from ten?
The student: Seven remain.
The Shaykh : Seven remain. So in this case, he owes seven. Is that clear, or did you not understand?
The student: We understood.
The Shaykh : The last group says that the exception is from what is adjacent to it, that each one is an exception from the one before it. "I have ten for him, except five, except three, except two, except one." Put it down now. According to this view, what do we do? We start from the last one. We start from the last one. We exclude the last one. The last one, except one, is an exception from two. What remains?
The student: One.
The Shaykh : We exclude one from three?
The student: Two remain.
The Shaykh : We exclude five from two?
The student: Three remain.
The Shaykh : Three remain. We exclude ten from them?
The student: Seven remain.
The Shaykh : Seven remain. And this is what the Hanbali jurists followed. This is what the Hanbali jurists followed: that each exception is an exception from the one before it, because that is the one adjacent to it. How... above. Okay, "I have ten for him, except five, except two." How much does he owe? Ten except five, except two?
The student: Seven, eight.
The Shaykh : Okay, let us take the first view. Let us take the first view that all exceptions are from the first one. Ten except five, except two. Five and two. The exceptions now are five and two.
The student: Seven.
The Shaykh : Seven, from ten?
The student: Three remain.
The Shaykh : Three remain. According to the second view: ten except five, except two. Two from five?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Three remain. Three from ten?
The student: Seven.
The Shaykh : Seven remain. Is there a clear difference or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Suppose the issue is in millions, for example. What is the difference between three million and seven million? What is the difference? Therefore, in truth, the stronger position is that each one is an exception from the one before it, if possible. As for "The people stood up except Zayd, except 'Amr, except Bakr," it is not possible to exclude each one from the one before it, because each one is a distinct individual. However, Ibn Malik's statement: "Their ruling in intent is like the ruling of the first" is general. Being general implies that they are all exceptions from the first one, even if it is possible to exclude some of them from others. Did you understand now?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Is it present in the language?
The Shaykh : No, no. This is present in the speech of the jurists in the chapter of acknowledgment. This occurs in the chapter of acknowledgment. They may mention it, but it is limited in the chapter of divorce, not exceeding more than three.
The student: I have ten for him, except five, except two.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Except two.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: We take two from five.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Three remain, then we take three from ten.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... ten except five.
The Shaykh : Okay, except five, except two. That means: except five, minus two from it. He did not say "except five" and stop; he said "except five, except two." That means: except five, minus two from it. Okay, five minus two?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : So he excluded three from ten.
The student: It returns to his intention.
The Shaykh : We do not concern ourselves with his intention, because in the issue of acknowledgment, we take the apparent meaning of the wording. If he claims something contrary to the apparent meaning, and the one to whom the acknowledgment is made verifies it, we act on it; otherwise, we do not act on it.
The student: We specify the intention.
The Shaykh : No, the intention is not specified, because the reality of the matter is that this view is clearly stronger: each one is an exception from the one before it. Because... he says "except five, except three." Why did you not say "ten except eight"? What makes you say "except five, except three"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, it can be said: "except five, except three"... there is effort in the expression... for example, "except five," he mentioned that he paid something.