Al-Bukhari mentioned it (40). He also said to Rukanah ibn 'Abd Yazid: "A-lillahi ma aradta illa wahidah?" (By Allah, did you intend only one [divorce]?). He said: "Allah, I did not intend anything but one" (41). Imru' al-Qays said:
He also said (42):
Two contexts are attached to it that indicate it: first, the response being the answer to an oath; and second, the accusative (nasb) and genitive (jarr) cases in the name of Allah the Almighty. Therefore, it is mandatory (43) that it be an oath, just as if he had said: "Wa-llahi" (By Allah). If he says: "Allahu la-af'alanna" (Allah, I will surely do [it]) in the nominative case [and intended an oath, it is an oath, but he has committed a solecism (lahn); it is as if he had said: "Wa-llahu" in the nominative case] (44). If he does not intend it as an oath, Abu al-Khattab said: It is an oath, because the context of the answer being the answer to an oath is sufficient. A commoner does not know grammar, so he utters it that way, unless he is one of the people of Arabic, for his deviation from the grammar of an oath is proof that he did not intend it. It is possible that it is not an oath in the case of a commoner, because it is not an oath in the case of those who know Arabic, so it would not be an oath in the case of (45) others, just as if he had not responded with the answer to an oath.
Section: An oath is responded to with four particles; two for negation, which are "ma" and "la", and two for affirmation, which are "in" and the fatha-vowelled "lam". The kasra-vowelled "in" acts in place of the negating "ma" (46), such as in His saying: {And they will surely swear: "We intended nothing but good"} (47). And if he says:
(40) Its takhrij (citation) has been previously mentioned on page 66. (41) Its takhrij has been previously mentioned in 10/364. (42) His Diwan 14, and the second hemistich of the verse is: * And I do not see the blindness clearing from you *. (43) In manuscript B: "fawajabat" (it became mandatory). (44) Omitted from B. Cited for consideration. (45) Did not appear in the original manuscript or M. (46) Omitted from M. (47) Surah al-Tawbah 107.
البُخارِىُّ (٤٠). وقال لِرُكَانةَ بن عبد يَزِيدَ: "آللَّهِ ما أرَدْتَ إلَّا وَاحِدَةً؟ " قال: اللَّه ما أَرَدْتُ إِلَّا وَاحِدَةً (٤١). وقال امرؤُ القَيْسِ:
* فَقُلْتُ يَمِينَ اللَّه أَبْرَحُ قاعِدًا *
وقال أيضًا (٤٢).
* فَقالَتْ يَمِينَ اللَّهِ مالَكَ حِيلَةٌ *
وقد اقْتَرَنَت به قَرِينَتان تَدُلَّان عليه؛ إحداهُما؛ الجوابُ بجَوابِ القَسَمِ. والثانِى، النُّصْبُ والجَرُّ فى اسمِ اللَّه تعالى؛ فوجَبَ (٤٣) أَنْ تكونَ يمينًا، كما لو قال: واللَّهِ. وإِنْ قال: اللَّهُ لأَفْعَلَن. بالرّفْعِ، [ونَوَى الْيَمِينَ، فهى يَمِينٌ، لكِنَّه قَدْ لَحَنَ، فهو كما لو قال: واللَّهُ. بالرَّفْعِ] (٤٤). وإِنْ لم يَنْوِ الْيَمِينَ، فقال أبو الخَطَّاب: يكونُ يَمِينًا؛ لأنَّ قَرينَةَ الجوابِ بجَوابِ القَسَمِ كافِيَة، والعامِّىُّ لا يَعْرِفُ الإِعْرابَ فيأْتِى به، إلَّا أَنْ يكونَ من أهلِ العربِيَّةِ، فإنَّ عُدولَه عن إعْرابِ القَسَمِ دليلٌ على أنَّه لم يُرِدْه. ويَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ لا يكونَ قَسَمًا فى حَقِّ العامِّىِّ؛ لأنَّه ليس بقَسَمٍ فى حَقِّ أهلِ العربِيَّةِ، فلم يكُنْ قَسَمًا فى حَقِّ (٤٥) غيرِهم، كما لو لم يُجِبْه بجوابِ القَسَمِ.
فصل: ويُجابُ القَسَمُ بأَرْبَعَةِ أَحْرُفٍ؛ حرفان للنَّفْى، وهما "ما" و"لا"، وحَرْفان للإثبات، وهما "إنْ" و"اللَّام" المفْتُوحَة. وتقومُ "إن" المكسورَةُ، مَقامَ "ما" (٤٦) النافِيَة، مثل قولِه: {وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا الْحُسْنَى} (٤٧). وإِنْ قال:
(٤٠) تقدم تخريجه، فى صفحة ٦٦.(٤١) تقدم تخريجه، فى: ١٠/ ٣٦٤.(٤٢) ديوانه ١٤، وعجز البيت:* وما إنْ أَرَى عنكَ العَمايَةَ تَنْجَلِى *(٤٣) فى ب: "فوجبت".(٤٤) سقط من: ب. نقل نظر.(٤٥) لم يرد فى: الأصل، م.(٤٦) سقط من: م.(٤٧) سورة التوبة ١٠٧.
