the designation of the excepted entity, because the ruling relates to his statement, and he is most knowledgeable of what he intended by it. If he designates the one other than the excepted one, it is valid, and the remainder is for him. If the slaves perish except one, and he declares that it is the one excepted, it is accepted. This was mentioned by al-Qadi, and it is one of the two opinions of the followers of al-Shafi'i. Abu al-Khattab said: It is not accepted, in one of the two opinions, and it is the second opinion of the followers of al-Shafi'i, because the entire acknowledgment is removed thereby. The correct view is that it is accepted; because his interpretation of it (23) is accepted during their lifetime for a reason that exists after their death, so it is accepted just as in the state of their lifetime. This is not a removal of the acknowledgment; rather, the delivery of the acknowledged item became impossible due to its destruction, not for a reason related to the interpretation, so it is similar to if he had designated it during their lifetime, and then it perished after he had designated it. If all of them were killed except one, his interpretation with the remainder is accepted, by a single opinion. If all of them were killed, he is entitled to the value of one of them, and reference is made to him regarding the interpretation. If he says: "I usurped from you these slaves except one," and they perished except one, his interpretation of it is accepted, by a single opinion; because the one in whose favor the acknowledgment was made is entitled to the value of those that perished, so interpretation with the remainder does not lead to the cancellation of the acknowledgment, unlike the case preceding it.

Section: The ruling on exception with all its instruments is the ruling on exception with "illa" (except). So if he says: "I owe him ten except for a dirham," or "not a dirham," or "excluding a dirham," or "besides a dirham," or "what excludes a dirham" or "what is besides a dirham," or "it shall not be a dirham" (24), or "other than a dirham"—with the fatha vowel on the ra—he is an acknowledger of nine. And if he says: "ghayru dirham" (other than a dirham), with the damma vowel on its ra, and he is from among the people of Arabic [language knowledge], he is an acknowledger of ten, because it is an adjective for the ten acknowledged, and it is not an exception. For if it were an exception, it would be in the accusative case. And if he is not from among the people of Arabic knowledge, nine is binding upon him; because the apparent [meaning] is that he only intends the exception, but he put it in the nominative case due to his ignorance of Arabic, not [by] intention for the adjective.

Section: Exception is not valid unless it is connected to the speech. If he pauses for a duration during which it is possible for him to [continue] the speech, or separates between the excepted from and the excepted by foreign speech, it is not valid; because when he pauses or shifts from his acknowledgment to something else, the ruling of what he acknowledged is established and is not removed, contrary to when it is within his speech, for then its ruling is not established, and it awaits what completes his speech, and the ruling of the exception, condition, conjunction, substitution, and the like, relates to it.