the two sentences. Rather, it excluded from both sentences together those who possessed a [specific] attribute, thus its parallel is as if he said to the doorman: "Whoever comes to seek permission, grant him permission and give him a dirham, except so-and-so." The parallel to our issue is as if he said: "Honor Zayd and 'Amr, except 'Amr." And if he said: "I owe him two dirhams and three except two dirhams," it is also invalid; because he is removing the entire first sentence, so it is similar to if he had said: "Honor Zayd and 'Amr except Zayd." And if he said: "I owe him three and three except two dirhams," two opinions were derived regarding it; because he has excepted the majority of the sentence that follows it, and excepting the majority is invalid, just like excepting the whole.

Section: If he uses an exception after an exception, and conjoins the second to the first, it is considered added to it. So if he says: "I owe him ten except three, and except two dirhams," he would be excepting five and remaining with five. But if the second is not conjoined to the first, it is an exception from an exception, which is permissible in the language and has occurred in the Speech of Allah the Almighty in His saying: {They said, "Indeed, we have been sent to a people of criminals (58) Except the family of Lot; indeed, we will save them all (59) Except his wife; We have destined that she is of those who remain behind" (60)}. Thus, if the beginning of the speech is an affirmation, the first exception is a negation and the second is an affirmation. If he makes a third exception, it is a negation, where every exception refers back to the speech that follows it. So if he says: "I owe him ten except three, except a dirham," he has acknowledged eight; because he affirmed ten, then [negated three from it] and affirmed a dirham, and there remains from the three negated [items] two dirhams excepted from the ten, thus eight remain. We will add more branches to this section in the issue of excepting the majority.