Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And exclude a genitive with *ghayr* as a state *** of what is excluded by *illa* in relation."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And exclude a genitive with *ghayr* as a state *** of what is excluded by *illa* in relation"
"And exclude a genitive with *ghayr*" means that *ghayr* is one of the tools of exclusion.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes? It is one of the tools of exclusion. It makes what follows it genitive by addition. It makes what follows it genitive by addition. And his saying: "with *ghayr* as a state", "as a state" is a state of whom?
The questioner : Of *ghayr*.
The Shaykh : Of *ghayr*. It is a state of *ghayr*. The reason it is valid for a state to come from it is that the intended meaning is its word form. So, in this sense, it is a definite noun. Otherwise, the rule is that a state does not come from an indefinite noun. A state does not come from an indefinite noun unless it is specified. But here, he intended its word form. So, in this sense, it is a definite noun. That is, the word *ghayr* is excluded as a genitive with it, in the state of this *ghayr* being inflected according to what is excluded by *illa* in relation. "According to what is excluded" is connected to his saying "as a state." And his saying: "excluded by *illa*" is connected to his saying "in relation." The alif in "in relation" is for generality. That is, inflected according to what is related to what is excluded by *illa*. According to what is related to what is excluded by *illa*. So, the one excluded by *ghayr* has two rulings—settle down, brothers—first: the ruling of this excluded one, and second: the ruling of *ghayr*. The ruling of *ghayr*. As for the ruling of the one excluded by it, what is it?
The student: The genitive case.
The Shaykh : The genitive case. The genitive case is always the case. You say, "O Husayn and O Ghanim! The people stood up, *ghayr* Zayd." And you say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd." And you say, "No one stood up but *ghayr* Zayd." Look, Zayd in all cases?
The student: Genitive.
The Shaykh : Genitive by addition. This is the excluded one. The second ruling: the ruling of *ghayr*. The ruling of *ghayr* is exactly the ruling of the one excluded by *illa*. The ruling of *ghayr* is exactly the ruling of the one excluded by *illa*. For this reason, he said: "as a state *** of what is excluded by *illa*". Now, if the sentence is complete and affirmative, complete and not negated, what is obligatory?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : Making *ghayr* accusative. "The people stood up, *ghayr* Zayd." "The people arrived, *ghayr* the prince." Is that right, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, if it is complete and negated, or quasi-negated, then substitution is preferred and the accusative is permissible. Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the accusative is permissible. If the excluded one is connected, if the excluded one is connected, then substitution is preferred and the accusative is permissible. You say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd." Is that right?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Now, "No student succeeded but *ghayr* what?" The diligent one. *Ghayr* the diligent one. Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, and it is permissible to say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd." "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd," or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, this becomes connected. And if the exclusion is disconnected, the accusative is obligatory according to the Hijazis, and substitution is permissible according to Banu Tamim. So you say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* a donkey." Is it permissible?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh? "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* a donkey." Is it permissible or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, rather, it is obligatory. According to the Hijazis, it is obligatory. "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* a donkey"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : According to the Hijazis, this is a grammatical error and not permissible. And according to the Tamimis, it is permissible. Do you understand, everyone, now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, "No one stood up but *ghayr* Zayd"?
The student: The nominative case is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The nominative case is obligatory, because it is empty. So you say: "Ma" is a negator, "qama" is a past tense verb, and "ghayr" is a nominative subject, and the sign of its nominative case is a dammah on its end. "Ghayr" is a possessive and "Zayd" is the possessed. "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge." "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And ... what is the second one after?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... There is only the accusative case, because it is empty, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If it is empty, the accusative is obligatory, just as if you said, "I did not honor but the student of knowledge." It is obligatory to say, "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge," obligatorily. Now, "I did not pass by *ghayr* Zayd"? Is that correct?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory, just as if you said, "I did not pass by but Zayd." Just as if you said, "I did not pass by but Zayd." The summary now: *Ghayr* has two considerations for us. The first consideration: the ruling of the inflection of *ghayr*. And the second consideration: the ruling of the inflection of the one excluded by it.
"And exclude a genitive with *ghayr*" means that *ghayr* is one of the tools of exclusion.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes? It is one of the tools of exclusion. It makes what follows it genitive by addition. It makes what follows it genitive by addition. And his saying: "with *ghayr* as a state", "as a state" is a state of whom?
The questioner : Of *ghayr*.
The Shaykh : Of *ghayr*. It is a state of *ghayr*. The reason it is valid for a state to come from it is that the intended meaning is its word form. So, in this sense, it is a definite noun. Otherwise, the rule is that a state does not come from an indefinite noun. A state does not come from an indefinite noun unless it is specified. But here, he intended its word form. So, in this sense, it is a definite noun. That is, the word *ghayr* is excluded as a genitive with it, in the state of this *ghayr* being inflected according to what is excluded by *illa* in relation. "According to what is excluded" is connected to his saying "as a state." And his saying: "excluded by *illa*" is connected to his saying "in relation." The alif in "in relation" is for generality. That is, inflected according to what is related to what is excluded by *illa*. According to what is related to what is excluded by *illa*. So, the one excluded by *ghayr* has two rulings—settle down, brothers—first: the ruling of this excluded one, and second: the ruling of *ghayr*. The ruling of *ghayr*. As for the ruling of the one excluded by it, what is it?
The student: The genitive case.
The Shaykh : The genitive case. The genitive case is always the case. You say, "O Husayn and O Ghanim! The people stood up, *ghayr* Zayd." And you say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd." And you say, "No one stood up but *ghayr* Zayd." Look, Zayd in all cases?
The student: Genitive.
The Shaykh : Genitive by addition. This is the excluded one. The second ruling: the ruling of *ghayr*. The ruling of *ghayr* is exactly the ruling of the one excluded by *illa*. The ruling of *ghayr* is exactly the ruling of the one excluded by *illa*. For this reason, he said: "as a state *** of what is excluded by *illa*". Now, if the sentence is complete and affirmative, complete and not negated, what is obligatory?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : Making *ghayr* accusative. "The people stood up, *ghayr* Zayd." "The people arrived, *ghayr* the prince." Is that right, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, if it is complete and negated, or quasi-negated, then substitution is preferred and the accusative is permissible. Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the accusative is permissible. If the excluded one is connected, if the excluded one is connected, then substitution is preferred and the accusative is permissible. You say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd." Is that right?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Now, "No student succeeded but *ghayr* what?" The diligent one. *Ghayr* the diligent one. Is that right?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, and it is permissible to say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd." "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* Zayd," or is it not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, this becomes connected. And if the exclusion is disconnected, the accusative is obligatory according to the Hijazis, and substitution is permissible according to Banu Tamim. So you say, "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* a donkey." Is it permissible?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh? "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* a donkey." Is it permissible or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, rather, it is obligatory. According to the Hijazis, it is obligatory. "The people did not stand up, *ghayr* a donkey"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : According to the Hijazis, this is a grammatical error and not permissible. And according to the Tamimis, it is permissible. Do you understand, everyone, now?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, "No one stood up but *ghayr* Zayd"?
The student: The nominative case is obligatory.
The Shaykh : The nominative case is obligatory, because it is empty. So you say: "Ma" is a negator, "qama" is a past tense verb, and "ghayr" is a nominative subject, and the sign of its nominative case is a dammah on its end. "Ghayr" is a possessive and "Zayd" is the possessed. "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge." "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And ... what is the second one after?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... There is only the accusative case, because it is empty, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If it is empty, the accusative is obligatory, just as if you said, "I did not honor but the student of knowledge." It is obligatory to say, "I did not honor *ghayr* the student of knowledge," obligatorily. Now, "I did not pass by *ghayr* Zayd"? Is that correct?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory, just as if you said, "I did not pass by but Zayd." Just as if you said, "I did not pass by but Zayd." The summary now: *Ghayr* has two considerations for us. The first consideration: the ruling of the inflection of *ghayr*. And the second consideration: the ruling of the inflection of the one excluded by it.