Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "And not one whose description resembles Ashhal *** And not one who does not follow the path of Fu'la."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And not one whose description resembles Ashhal ***"
This means: and make them two from a verb from which a description in the form of Af'al cannot be derived, like Ashhal, yashhal, so he is Ashhal; it is not appropriate to say "How Ashhal he is." Hamir, yahmar, so he is Ahmar; you cannot say "How Ahmar he is," right? Likewise, "How Aswad he is" is not appropriate, because the description derived from it is in the form of Af'al, clear? Now, there is disagreement regarding this condition, as some grammarians say it is not a condition, and people understand the difference between "So-and-so is black" and "How black he is," is that not so? Meaning, how intense his blackness is; as long as it is capable of comparison, it is appropriate to say "How Aswad he is." Now, what about "How A'raj Zayd is"?
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : It is the same; if we say it is permissible, then it is permissible, otherwise it is not.
"And not one who does not follow the path of Fu'la" This means its meaning is not built for the unknown, like: Zayd, a man came and hit him a great hit, struck... Ah, because we have Zayd, you see, then he says "Ah, you have exposed my private parts," okay, let's bring Bakr, a man hit Bakr a great hit, do we say "Bakr was struck" or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If we wanted to express wonder at this hit and said: How Bakr was struck.
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : Is that acceptable?
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : It is not appropriate, because if you say "How he was struck," its meaning is as if the striking came from him, and you want to express wonder at a striking that happened to him, so the meaning differs, and for this reason it is not appropriate if it is built for the unknown.
The student : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes.
This means: and make them two from a verb from which a description in the form of Af'al cannot be derived, like Ashhal, yashhal, so he is Ashhal; it is not appropriate to say "How Ashhal he is." Hamir, yahmar, so he is Ahmar; you cannot say "How Ahmar he is," right? Likewise, "How Aswad he is" is not appropriate, because the description derived from it is in the form of Af'al, clear? Now, there is disagreement regarding this condition, as some grammarians say it is not a condition, and people understand the difference between "So-and-so is black" and "How black he is," is that not so? Meaning, how intense his blackness is; as long as it is capable of comparison, it is appropriate to say "How Aswad he is." Now, what about "How A'raj Zayd is"?
The student: Like it.
The Shaykh : It is the same; if we say it is permissible, then it is permissible, otherwise it is not.
"And not one who does not follow the path of Fu'la" This means its meaning is not built for the unknown, like: Zayd, a man came and hit him a great hit, struck... Ah, because we have Zayd, you see, then he says "Ah, you have exposed my private parts," okay, let's bring Bakr, a man hit Bakr a great hit, do we say "Bakr was struck" or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If we wanted to express wonder at this hit and said: How Bakr was struck.
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : Is that acceptable?
The student: It is not suitable.
The Shaykh : It is not appropriate, because if you say "How he was struck," its meaning is as if the striking came from him, and you want to express wonder at a striking that happened to him, so the meaning differs, and for this reason it is not appropriate if it is built for the unknown.
The student : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes.