Explanation of the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: " . . .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: “And the excluded item with *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā* may be in the accusative or genitive case, as in: ‘The people stood up except for Zayd’ (accusative) or ‘except for Zayd’ (genitive), and ‘except for ʿUmar’ (accusative) or ‘except for ʿUmar’ (genitive), and ‘except for Bakr’ (accusative) or ‘except for Bakr’ (genitive)”. The excluded item with these three tools—*khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā*—has two permissible forms: the accusative and the genitive. It has two forms: the accusative and the genitive. But how are both the accusative and the genitive permissible? On what basis? If you treat these three as verbs, it is the accusative; if you treat them as prepositions, it is the genitive. Because they say: by following the Arabic language, we found that the Arabs sometimes use them to put the following word in the genitive and sometimes in the accusative. We did not find a derivation for this behavior other than that if they put the following word in the genitive, they are prepositions, and if they put it in the accusative, they are verbs. This is one of the peculiarities: that a single word can be a verb and a preposition. Now, if you say: “The people stood up except for Zayd” (genitive), the grammatical analysis is: *qāma* (stood up) is a past tense verb, and *al-qawm* (the people) is the subject in the nominative case, and the sign of its nominative is the visible *dammah* at its end. *Khalā* is a preposition, and *Zayd* is a noun in the genitive case by *khalā*, and the sign of its genitive is the visible *kasrah* at its end. And you say: “The people went out except for ʿUmar” (genitive). *Kharaja al-qawm* (the people went out) is a verb and a subject, and *ʿadā* is a preposition, and *ʿUmar* is a noun in the genitive case by *ʿadā*, and the sign of its genitive is the visible *kasrah* at its end. And you say: “The people set out except for Bakr” (genitive). *Intalaqa al-qawm* (the people set out) is a verb and a subject, and *hāshā* is a preposition, and *Bakr* is a noun in the genitive case by *hāshā*, and the sign of its genitive is the visible *kasrah* at its end. Do you understand now? Now, as for the accusative, they become past tense verbs, and their subject is necessarily hidden; it cannot be explicit in the Arabic language. Now, what is the example? You say: “The people stood up except for Zayd” (accusative). So you analyze *qāma al-qawm* (the people stood up) as a verb and a subject, and *khalā* is a past tense verb whose subject is necessarily hidden, and *Zayd* is what?
The student: A direct object.
The Shaykh : It is the object in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative is the visible *fathah* at its end.
The student: What is the implied meaning?
The Shaykh : Yes, the implied meaning is “he.” But this excluded item is from what we previously said: if its implied meaning is “he” or “she,” it is hidden permissibly. It is said: this is an excluded item. And they made the exclusion obligatory because the Arabs never pronounced it in all of history. This is unlike if you say: “Zayd stood up.” The past tense verb has a subject that is hidden permissibly, because it is permissible to say: “Zayd’s father stood up” and make the subject explicit. But in the chapter of exclusion with *khalā Zayd*, the Arabs never made the subject explicit in all of history. Therefore, the grammarians said: we follow the Arabs, and the Arabs do not follow us. So the pronoun is necessarily hidden. Now, is the exclusion with *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā* also easy or not? The excluded item has two forms: the genitive and the accusative. So in the form of the genitive, what are these tools?
The student: Prepositions.
The Shaykh : Prepositions, prepositions. And in the form of the accusative, they are verbs, and their subject is necessarily hidden, with the implied meaning “he,” which refers to the excluded portion. But even though its implied meaning is “he,” it cannot be explicit based on the Arabs’ usage, and the Arabs are the judges in this matter. Now.
The student: What is it implied to be?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: What is its implied meaning?
The Shaykh : *Khalā* the excluded portion. Now.
The student: It is the object, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: So it is the object, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Huh? Meaning: they estimate it as “transcended.” *Khalā* the excluded portion Zayd, meaning: he transcended Zayd, because he did not stand up, for example, or did not go out, or the like. In any case, this is what is heard from the Arabs, and the grammarians came to estimate this with a kind of effort. There is something of an effort in it. But as I told you before: “The grammarian’s proof is a four-line poem”. If a stone is thrown from one door, it exits from the second door and is safe and saved. Now, praise be to Allah for the completion. Now the exclusion has become clear to us that its tools are pure nouns, pure prepositions, and those in which both forms are permissible, being a preposition and a verb. The pure preposition is *illā*, and the pure nouns are *ghayr*, *siwā*, *sūwā*, and *sawāʾ*. And those that can be a preposition and a verb are *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā*. But here is an issue: the grammarians say: if *mā* is joined with *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā*, the accusative becomes obligatory. The accusative becomes obligatory because when it is joined with *mā*, it becomes a verb, not a preposition. And at that time, the accusative becomes obligatory. So if you say: “The people stood up, *mā khalā* Zayd” (accusative), it is not permissible to say: “The people stood up, *mā khalā* Zayd” (genitive). And if you say: “The people stood up, *mā ʿadā* Bakr” (accusative), it is not permissible to say: “*mā ʿadā* Bakr” (genitive). And likewise *hāshā*. So if the negating *mā* enters, and if it is joined with it, then it becomes obligatory for them to be verbs, and at that time, it is obligatory to put what follows them in the accusative. Now, other than *siwā*, *sūwā*, and *sawāʾ*, do *siwā*, *sūwā*, and *sawāʾ* mean the same thing? Yes. So you say: “The people came, *siwā* Zayd” (genitive), “*sūwā* Zayd” (genitive), and “*sawāʾ* Zayd” (genitive). Even though we know that *sawāʾ* is not from the tools of exclusion, but it is a linguistic variant of what?
The student: Of *siwā*.
The Shaykh : A linguistic variant of *siwā*. Otherwise, *sawāʾ* is known to mean “equal,” as in His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:6]. But it comes in the chapter of exclusion as a synonym for *siwā*, meaning with its meaning. And Allah knows best. Shall we take the discussion now? Huh, O Muhammad?
The student: Can we say *mā*, meaning it is all one?
The Shaykh : You say: *mā*. Yes, if *mā* is joined with it, it becomes a verb and the accusative becomes obligatory. And this *mā*, they say, is a source preposition or an adverbial preposition, but there is some difficulty in its estimation. Huh, O Zahid!
The student: Except for the attached in what is known as the tool of restriction.
The Shaykh : Yes, except for the attached.
The student: Yes, except for the attached.
The Shaykh : Except for the attached in what is known as the tool of restriction, unless it is nullified with a complete negated statement, in which case it is called “attached” and not “restriction.” Yes?
The student: “The people stood up except for Zayd” (genitive). Here a past tense verb is joined...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: A past tense verb is joined...
The Shaykh : There is nothing to prevent it.
The student: Is it permissible, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. It exists in the Arabic language.
The student: A direct object.
The Shaykh : It is the object in the accusative case, and the sign of its accusative is the visible *fathah* at its end.
The student: What is the implied meaning?
The Shaykh : Yes, the implied meaning is “he.” But this excluded item is from what we previously said: if its implied meaning is “he” or “she,” it is hidden permissibly. It is said: this is an excluded item. And they made the exclusion obligatory because the Arabs never pronounced it in all of history. This is unlike if you say: “Zayd stood up.” The past tense verb has a subject that is hidden permissibly, because it is permissible to say: “Zayd’s father stood up” and make the subject explicit. But in the chapter of exclusion with *khalā Zayd*, the Arabs never made the subject explicit in all of history. Therefore, the grammarians said: we follow the Arabs, and the Arabs do not follow us. So the pronoun is necessarily hidden. Now, is the exclusion with *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā* also easy or not? The excluded item has two forms: the genitive and the accusative. So in the form of the genitive, what are these tools?
The student: Prepositions.
The Shaykh : Prepositions, prepositions. And in the form of the accusative, they are verbs, and their subject is necessarily hidden, with the implied meaning “he,” which refers to the excluded portion. But even though its implied meaning is “he,” it cannot be explicit based on the Arabs’ usage, and the Arabs are the judges in this matter. Now.
The student: What is it implied to be?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: What is its implied meaning?
The Shaykh : *Khalā* the excluded portion. Now.
The student: It is the object, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: So it is the object, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Huh? Meaning: they estimate it as “transcended.” *Khalā* the excluded portion Zayd, meaning: he transcended Zayd, because he did not stand up, for example, or did not go out, or the like. In any case, this is what is heard from the Arabs, and the grammarians came to estimate this with a kind of effort. There is something of an effort in it. But as I told you before: “The grammarian’s proof is a four-line poem”. If a stone is thrown from one door, it exits from the second door and is safe and saved. Now, praise be to Allah for the completion. Now the exclusion has become clear to us that its tools are pure nouns, pure prepositions, and those in which both forms are permissible, being a preposition and a verb. The pure preposition is *illā*, and the pure nouns are *ghayr*, *siwā*, *sūwā*, and *sawāʾ*. And those that can be a preposition and a verb are *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā*. But here is an issue: the grammarians say: if *mā* is joined with *khalā*, *ʿadā*, and *hāshā*, the accusative becomes obligatory. The accusative becomes obligatory because when it is joined with *mā*, it becomes a verb, not a preposition. And at that time, the accusative becomes obligatory. So if you say: “The people stood up, *mā khalā* Zayd” (accusative), it is not permissible to say: “The people stood up, *mā khalā* Zayd” (genitive). And if you say: “The people stood up, *mā ʿadā* Bakr” (accusative), it is not permissible to say: “*mā ʿadā* Bakr” (genitive). And likewise *hāshā*. So if the negating *mā* enters, and if it is joined with it, then it becomes obligatory for them to be verbs, and at that time, it is obligatory to put what follows them in the accusative. Now, other than *siwā*, *sūwā*, and *sawāʾ*, do *siwā*, *sūwā*, and *sawāʾ* mean the same thing? Yes. So you say: “The people came, *siwā* Zayd” (genitive), “*sūwā* Zayd” (genitive), and “*sawāʾ* Zayd” (genitive). Even though we know that *sawāʾ* is not from the tools of exclusion, but it is a linguistic variant of what?
The student: Of *siwā*.
The Shaykh : A linguistic variant of *siwā*. Otherwise, *sawāʾ* is known to mean “equal,” as in His saying, the Exalted:
it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them
سواء عليهم أأنذرتهم أم لم تنذرهمThe student: Can we say *mā*, meaning it is all one?
The Shaykh : You say: *mā*. Yes, if *mā* is joined with it, it becomes a verb and the accusative becomes obligatory. And this *mā*, they say, is a source preposition or an adverbial preposition, but there is some difficulty in its estimation. Huh, O Zahid!
The student: Except for the attached in what is known as the tool of restriction.
The Shaykh : Yes, except for the attached.
The student: Yes, except for the attached.
The Shaykh : Except for the attached in what is known as the tool of restriction, unless it is nullified with a complete negated statement, in which case it is called “attached” and not “restriction.” Yes?
The student: “The people stood up except for Zayd” (genitive). Here a past tense verb is joined...
The Shaykh : How?
The student: A past tense verb is joined...
The Shaykh : There is nothing to prevent it.
The student: Is it permissible, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. It exists in the Arabic language.