Continuation of the explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: "
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So we say regarding the grammatical analysis: “None of the people stood up.” “Ma” is a negation particle. “Qama” is a past tense verb, built on the fathah. “Al-qawm” is the subject, in the nominative case, built on the dhammah in the position of the nominative.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Incorrect?
The student: It is in the nominative case due to the visible dhammah.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct me if I make a mistake. “Al-qawm” is therefore the subject in the nominative case, and its sign of the nominative is the visible dhammah at its end. “Illa” is the particle of exception. “Zayd” is a *badal* (substitute) for “al-qawm.” The *badal* of a nominative word is in the nominative case, and its sign is the visible dhammah at its end. What type of *badal* is this? What is its type?
The student: Part of a whole.
The Shaykh : Part of a whole, part of a whole. Good. The second option: the accusative case for the sake of exception. So I say: “None of the people stood up except Zayd (accusative).” Its grammatical analysis: “None of the people stood up.” “Ma” is a negation particle, “qama” is a past tense verb, “al-qawm” is the subject, “illa” is the particle of exception, and “Zayd” is the exception, in the accusative case for the sake of exception. What is its sign of the accusative case?
The student: The visible fathah.
The Shaykh : The visible fathah at its end. Complete? Good. A man came to us saying: “None of the people stood up except Zayd (genitive)?”
The student: An error.
The Shaykh : Is it wrong? How is it wrong? “None of the people stood up except Zayd (genitive).”
The student: No, it is wrong.
The Shaykh : Hahaha, correct. This is neither a *badal* nor an exception. The author says: either a *badal* or an exception. And this is not valid as a *badal* nor as an exception. Good. In the Noble Qur'an:[An-Nisa 4:66] And there is also a verse: [Al-Baqarah 2:249], [Al-Baqarah 2:249]. This is in the accusative case for the sake of exception. Is the accusative case here obligatory or not?
The student: Obligatory, obligatory.
Another student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Obligatory, permissible.
The student: Obligatory, obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory, my brothers, because what precedes it is a complete affirmative sentence. It did not say: “They did not drink from it.” It said: [Al-Baqarah 2:249]. So the exception here is obligatory. Therefore, the accusative case for the sake of exception is obligatory here. [An-Nisa 4:66]?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : This is permissible, but not in the Qur'an. We do not have the right to speak with anything other than what came in the Qur'an. Good. But in the Qur'an:[An-Nisa 4:66] The *badal* came, and the accusative case did not come. The *badal* came, and the accusative case did not come, because the *badal* is more indicative of the meaning. For example, if I say: “None of the people stood up except Zayd (nominative),” then Zayd is undoubtedly standing. How can you say: “except Zayd (accusative)” in the accusative case for the sake of exception and exclude him? So the *badal* is clearer than the exception and closer to the meaning. For this reason, it came in the Qur'an: [An-Nisa 4:66]. It came as a *badal*. And we can know that the author prefers the *badal* because?
The student: He placed it first.
The Shaykh : He placed it first in the example, saying: “except Zayd (nominative)” and “except Zayd (accusative).” And based on this, we say: If what precedes “illa” is a complete negative sentence, then both options are permissible in it. Khalid, what is the time? Both options are permissible. What is the first option?
The student: The *badal*.
The Shaykh : The *badal*, and the second?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case for the sake of exception. And which one is stronger?
The student: The *badal*.
The Shaykh : The *badal*, because it is what came in the Qur'an, and it is closer to the meaning. Is that clear, everyone? Good. The grammarians say that the author did not mention it because it is rare. They say: If the exception is disconnected, the accusative case is obligatory, and both options are not permissible. The accusative case is obligatory, and both options are not permissible. Yes?
The student: What is a disconnected exception?
The Shaykh : What is a disconnected exception? It is when what comes after “illa” is of a different kind than what comes before it. This is the disconnected one. What comes after “illa” is of a different kind than what comes before it. What is its example? They said: For example, if you say: “The people arrived except a donkey.” “The people arrived except a donkey.” Is the donkey from the people?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, but the Arabs may express it like this. They say: “The people arrived except a donkey.” For example, the donkey was lost, so the people came and the donkey did not come. In this case, they said: Is it obligatory?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case is obligatory. Ibn Malik said: “And put in the accusative case what is disconnected”. Then he said: “And from Tamim, substitution occurred in it”. This means that the language of Banu Tamim says: Both options are permissible, whether the exception is disconnected or connected. So Banu Tamim make the rule one. And the Quraysh say: No, if the exception is disconnected, it must be disconnected in the grammatical analysis, and we must not make a connection between it and what is before “illa,” because it is of a different kind. The Tamimi dialect is easier because a person does not make a mistake. But the Quraysh are more settled, because the *badal* is usually of the same kind as the word it substitutes. So if you put it in the nominative case, it means you made the donkey of the same kind as the people, and this is problematic. In any case, we have informed you of this, even though the author did not mention it, for the sake of benefit. I return a second time and say: If what precedes “illa” is a complete negative sentence?
The student: Two options are permissible in it.
The Shaykh : Two options are permissible in it: the *badal*, which is the most eloquent, and the second: the accusative case for the sake of exception. Unless the exception is disconnected, in which case the *badal* is not permissible. The accusative case is determined. The accusative case is determined. Have we finished now or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good. If I say: “The students did not neglect the lesson except so-and-so,” what is the case of “so-and-so”?
The student: Except so-and-so?
The Shaykh : “The students did not neglect the lesson except so-and-so”?
The student: So-and-so (nominative) and so-and-so (accusative).
The Shaykh : So-and-so (nominative) and so-and-so (accusative). Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good. So-and-so (nominative) and so-and-so (accusative). Which one is more eloquent?
The student: So-and-so (nominative).
The Shaykh : So-and-so (nominative), the nominative case. The *badal* is more eloquent. Good. You say: “I did not see anyone except Zayd (accusative).” Which one is more eloquent?
The student: Both options together.
The Shaykh : Two options, and the form is the same. The form is the same, but the difference is only in the grammatical analysis. “I did not see anyone except Zayd (accusative).” You cannot say: “except Zayd (nominative)” now, nor “except Zayd (genitive).” Why? Because it is in the accusative case in any case. If you make it an exception, it is in the accusative case. If you make it a *badal*, it is in the accusative case. But the grammatical analysis differs. So, for example, I will analyze it now, and you designate the most eloquent one. “I did not see anyone except Zayd (accusative):” “Ma” is a negation particle. “Ra'aytu” is a verb and a subject, and the details are known. “Ahadan” is the object, in the accusative case, and its sign is the visible fathah at its end. “Illa Zaydan.” “Illa” is the particle of exception. And “Zayd” is a *badal* for “ahad.” The *badal* of an accusative word is in the accusative case, and its sign is the visible fathah at its end. Is this correct?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Good. Take this as correct. “I did not see anyone,” we know its grammatical analysis. “Illa” is the particle of exception. And “Zayd” is the exception, in the accusative case for the sake of exception, and its sign is the visible fathah at its end?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct or not correct? The grammatical analysis is correct, but the first grammatical analysis is more eloquent. Good. “I did not pass by anyone except Zayd (genitive)?”
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : “I did not pass by anyone except Zayd (genitive).” “I did not pass by anyone except Zayd (accusative).” Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but it is the weaker position. The stronger position is “except Zayd (genitive),” and it is?
The student: The substitute.
The Shaykh : The *badal*. Have we understood this case now? The second case: If the sentence is a complete negative sentence, two options are permissible for the exception, right?
The student: Two aspects.
The Shaykh : Two options, correct. So the meaning is correct and the wording is wrong. Two options are permissible for the exception. What is the first option?
The student: The substitute.
The Shaykh : The *badal*, which is the most eloquent. And the second option?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case for the sake of exception. The *badal*, because it is the language of the Qur'an and because it is closer to the meaning. Because the reality of the matter is that the verb is applied to what comes after “illa.” Good. We have the third case remaining, I am afraid it may not be possible. Good. Are there three minutes left?
The student: Yes.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Incorrect?
The student: It is in the nominative case due to the visible dhammah.
The Shaykh : Yes, correct me if I make a mistake. “Al-qawm” is therefore the subject in the nominative case, and its sign of the nominative is the visible dhammah at its end. “Illa” is the particle of exception. “Zayd” is a *badal* (substitute) for “al-qawm.” The *badal* of a nominative word is in the nominative case, and its sign is the visible dhammah at its end. What type of *badal* is this? What is its type?
The student: Part of a whole.
The Shaykh : Part of a whole, part of a whole. Good. The second option: the accusative case for the sake of exception. So I say: “None of the people stood up except Zayd (accusative).” Its grammatical analysis: “None of the people stood up.” “Ma” is a negation particle, “qama” is a past tense verb, “al-qawm” is the subject, “illa” is the particle of exception, and “Zayd” is the exception, in the accusative case for the sake of exception. What is its sign of the accusative case?
The student: The visible fathah.
The Shaykh : The visible fathah at its end. Complete? Good. A man came to us saying: “None of the people stood up except Zayd (genitive)?”
The student: An error.
The Shaykh : Is it wrong? How is it wrong? “None of the people stood up except Zayd (genitive).”
The student: No, it is wrong.
The Shaykh : Hahaha, correct. This is neither a *badal* nor an exception. The author says: either a *badal* or an exception. And this is not valid as a *badal* nor as an exception. Good. In the Noble Qur'an:
they would not have done it, except for a few of them
ما فعلوه إلاّ قليلٌ منهمBut they drank from it, except a [very] few of them.
فشربوا منه إلا قليلًا منهمBut they drank from it, except a [very] few of them.
فشربوا منه إلاّ قليلًا منهمThe student: Obligatory, obligatory.
Another student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Obligatory, permissible.
The student: Obligatory, obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory, my brothers, because what precedes it is a complete affirmative sentence.
And they drank from it
فشربوا منهBut they drank from it, except a [very] few of them.
فشربوا منه إلا قليلا منهمthey would not have done it, except for a few of them
ما فعلوه إلاّ قليلٌ منهمThe student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : This is permissible, but not in the Qur'an. We do not have the right to speak with anything other than what came in the Qur'an. Good. But in the Qur'an:
they would not have done it, except for a few
ما فعلوه إلاّ قليلٌthey would not have done it, except for a few of them
ما فعلوه إلاّ قليلٌ منهمThe student: He placed it first.
The Shaykh : He placed it first in the example, saying: “except Zayd (nominative)” and “except Zayd (accusative).” And based on this, we say: If what precedes “illa” is a complete negative sentence, then both options are permissible in it. Khalid, what is the time? Both options are permissible. What is the first option?
The student: The *badal*.
The Shaykh : The *badal*, and the second?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case for the sake of exception. And which one is stronger?
The student: The *badal*.
The Shaykh : The *badal*, because it is what came in the Qur'an, and it is closer to the meaning. Is that clear, everyone? Good. The grammarians say that the author did not mention it because it is rare. They say: If the exception is disconnected, the accusative case is obligatory, and both options are not permissible. The accusative case is obligatory, and both options are not permissible. Yes?
The student: What is a disconnected exception?
The Shaykh : What is a disconnected exception? It is when what comes after “illa” is of a different kind than what comes before it. This is the disconnected one. What comes after “illa” is of a different kind than what comes before it. What is its example? They said: For example, if you say: “The people arrived except a donkey.” “The people arrived except a donkey.” Is the donkey from the people?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, but the Arabs may express it like this. They say: “The people arrived except a donkey.” For example, the donkey was lost, so the people came and the donkey did not come. In this case, they said: Is it obligatory?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case is obligatory. Ibn Malik said: “And put in the accusative case what is disconnected”. Then he said: “And from Tamim, substitution occurred in it”. This means that the language of Banu Tamim says: Both options are permissible, whether the exception is disconnected or connected. So Banu Tamim make the rule one. And the Quraysh say: No, if the exception is disconnected, it must be disconnected in the grammatical analysis, and we must not make a connection between it and what is before “illa,” because it is of a different kind. The Tamimi dialect is easier because a person does not make a mistake. But the Quraysh are more settled, because the *badal* is usually of the same kind as the word it substitutes. So if you put it in the nominative case, it means you made the donkey of the same kind as the people, and this is problematic. In any case, we have informed you of this, even though the author did not mention it, for the sake of benefit. I return a second time and say: If what precedes “illa” is a complete negative sentence?
The student: Two options are permissible in it.
The Shaykh : Two options are permissible in it: the *badal*, which is the most eloquent, and the second: the accusative case for the sake of exception. Unless the exception is disconnected, in which case the *badal* is not permissible. The accusative case is determined. The accusative case is determined. Have we finished now or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good. If I say: “The students did not neglect the lesson except so-and-so,” what is the case of “so-and-so”?
The student: Except so-and-so?
The Shaykh : “The students did not neglect the lesson except so-and-so”?
The student: So-and-so (nominative) and so-and-so (accusative).
The Shaykh : So-and-so (nominative) and so-and-so (accusative). Correct?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Good. So-and-so (nominative) and so-and-so (accusative). Which one is more eloquent?
The student: So-and-so (nominative).
The Shaykh : So-and-so (nominative), the nominative case. The *badal* is more eloquent. Good. You say: “I did not see anyone except Zayd (accusative).” Which one is more eloquent?
The student: Both options together.
The Shaykh : Two options, and the form is the same. The form is the same, but the difference is only in the grammatical analysis. “I did not see anyone except Zayd (accusative).” You cannot say: “except Zayd (nominative)” now, nor “except Zayd (genitive).” Why? Because it is in the accusative case in any case. If you make it an exception, it is in the accusative case. If you make it a *badal*, it is in the accusative case. But the grammatical analysis differs. So, for example, I will analyze it now, and you designate the most eloquent one. “I did not see anyone except Zayd (accusative):” “Ma” is a negation particle. “Ra'aytu” is a verb and a subject, and the details are known. “Ahadan” is the object, in the accusative case, and its sign is the visible fathah at its end. “Illa Zaydan.” “Illa” is the particle of exception. And “Zayd” is a *badal* for “ahad.” The *badal* of an accusative word is in the accusative case, and its sign is the visible fathah at its end. Is this correct?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Good. Take this as correct. “I did not see anyone,” we know its grammatical analysis. “Illa” is the particle of exception. And “Zayd” is the exception, in the accusative case for the sake of exception, and its sign is the visible fathah at its end?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Correct or not correct? The grammatical analysis is correct, but the first grammatical analysis is more eloquent. Good. “I did not pass by anyone except Zayd (genitive)?”
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : “I did not pass by anyone except Zayd (genitive).” “I did not pass by anyone except Zayd (accusative).” Is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, but it is the weaker position. The stronger position is “except Zayd (genitive),” and it is?
The student: The substitute.
The Shaykh : The *badal*. Have we understood this case now? The second case: If the sentence is a complete negative sentence, two options are permissible for the exception, right?
The student: Two aspects.
The Shaykh : Two options, correct. So the meaning is correct and the wording is wrong. Two options are permissible for the exception. What is the first option?
The student: The substitute.
The Shaykh : The *badal*, which is the most eloquent. And the second option?
The student: The accusative case.
The Shaykh : The accusative case for the sake of exception. The *badal*, because it is the language of the Qur'an and because it is closer to the meaning. Because the reality of the matter is that the verb is applied to what comes after “illa.” Good. We have the third case remaining, I am afraid it may not be possible. Good. Are there three minutes left?
The student: Yes.