Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/317)

Grammarians have mentioned that “before” and “after” have four possible states: either the genitive complement is stated; or it is omitted while its actual wording is intended; or it is omitted while its meaning is intended; or it is omitted without either its wording or its meaning being intended. In the last case, it is declinable and takes tanwin, as in the poet’s words:

“The drink then went down easily for me, though formerly
I would nearly choke on fresh water.”

The grammatical evidence lies in his words, “though formerly.”

If the genitive complement is omitted while its wording is intended, the word remains declinable but does not take tanwin. Thus, one may say: “I came min qabli—earlier—and found my companion.” Here it is declinable without tanwin, because the wording of the genitive complement is intended.

If the genitive complement is omitted while its meaning is intended, then the word is indeclinable with a dammah. Thus, one may say: “I came min qablu—before this time—and found my companion.”

If the genitive complement is stated, the word is then declinable, and naturally does not take tanwin, for the poet says to his addressee:

“It is as though I were tanwin and you were an annexation:
Where can you find me? You do not take my place.”

Here, then, we say that the genitive complement has been omitted while its meaning is intended. It is also possible to put “after” in the accusative and intend its wording, for this depends on what the speaker intends. So, if he were to say, for example, “When the buyer discovers the defect ba‘da,” we would know that he has omitted the genitive complement while intending its wording.

His statement, “after,” means that the buyer discovers the defect after the contract has been concluded. If he learns of it at the time of the contract, he has no option to rescind, because entering into the contract despite knowing of its defect indicates that he accepts it. Once he accepts the defect, the sale becomes binding. The same applies if this was stipulated against him. But if he did not know and then came to know of it, the author says:

وذكروا أن (قبل وبعد) لهما أربع حالات: إما أن يذكر المضاف إليه، أو يحذف وينوى لفظه، أو يحذف وينوى معناه، أو يحذف ولا ينوى لفظه ولا معناه، فهو في الحالة الأخيرة معرب منون، ومنه قول الشاعر: فساغ لي الشراب وكنت قبلاً أكاد أغص بالماء الفرات والشاهد قوله: «وكنت قبلاً». فإذا حذف المضاف ونوي لفظه، فهو معرب غير منون، فتقول: أتيت من قبلِ فوجدت صاحبي، فهنا معرب غير منون؛ لأنه نوي لفظ المضاف إليه. وإذا حذف المضاف ونوي معناه، فحينئذٍ يبنى على الضم، فتقول: أتيت من قبلُ، أي: من قبل هذا الزمن فوجدت صاحبي. وإذا ذكر المضاف إليه فحينئذٍ يعرب، وبالطبع لا ينون؛ لأن الشاعر يقول لمخاطبه: كأني تنوين وأنت إضافة فأين تراني لا تحل مكاني فهنا نقول: حذف المضاف إليه ونوي معناه، ويمكن أن تنصب «بعد» وتنوي اللفظ؛ لأن هذا على نية المتكلم، فإذا قال مثلاً: «فإذا علم المشتري العيب بعدَ»، عرفنا أنه حذف المضاف إليه ونوى لفظه. وقوله: «بعد» أي علم المشتري العيب بعد العقد، فإذا علم به عند العقد فلا خيار له؛ لأنه عقده عليه مع علمه بعيبه يدل على رضاه به، وإذا رضي بالعيب فقد لزم البيع، وكذا لو شُرط عليه ولكن إذا لم يعلم ثم علم به يقول المؤلف: