A reading from Ibn 'Aqil's commentary (may Allah have mercy on him): from his statement, with the Shaykh's commentary on it: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Shall you read to us from it?
The reader: *Ma akhsara*.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Ma akhsara* and *ma a'sahu*.
The Shaykh : And where?
The reader: He says: "and it is not analogized to what was heard from it, such as their saying: *ma akhsara* from *ikhtasar*, where they built *af'ala* from a verb that has more than three letters and is built for the passive, and their saying: *ma ahamqahu*, where they built *af'ala* from a verb whose description is on the pattern of *af'ala*, like *hamiq* so he is *ahmaq*, and their saying: *ma a'sahu* and *a'sa bihi*, where they built *af'ala* and *af'ala bihi* from *'asa*, which is a non-declined verb".
The Shaykh : Is that all? In any case, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: this rare case is not to be analogized to. And the scholars of jurisprudence say: the rare case has no ruling, the rare case has no ruling, so the criterion is the rule. As for the anomalous case, it is not considered, and this is in everything. In everything, the anomalous case that deviates from its counterparts is not analogized to. Yes, one only excuses it and does not argue with it. Now, their saying *ma akhsara*, a small book, so I said *ma akhsara*, even though it is from *ikhtasar*. For this reason it is said: this book is *mukhtasar*, a passive participle. This is contrary to the rule because it has more than three letters, and because it is built for the passive. And yet the Arabs say: *ma akhsara*, *ma a'sahu*, he does such and such. If you were to read, O Sayyid, Sayyid, O Sayyid, if you were to read the Qur'an, it would be better for you and safer for you. Likewise, you say: *ma a'sahu*, *ma a'sahu* he does such and such, or by doing such and such. Here it is built from a correct triliteral verb, *'asa*, which is triliteral, but it is?
The student: It is static.
The Shaykh : It is static, but it is static. The author says: you do not analogize to these things, because they are heard and not analogized to, or memorized and not analogized to.
The student: *Ma a'sarahu*, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Ma a'sarahu*.
The reader: *Ma akhsara*.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Ma akhsara* and *ma a'sahu*.
The Shaykh : And where?
The reader: He says: "and it is not analogized to what was heard from it, such as their saying: *ma akhsara* from *ikhtasar*, where they built *af'ala* from a verb that has more than three letters and is built for the passive, and their saying: *ma ahamqahu*, where they built *af'ala* from a verb whose description is on the pattern of *af'ala*, like *hamiq* so he is *ahmaq*, and their saying: *ma a'sahu* and *a'sa bihi*, where they built *af'ala* and *af'ala bihi* from *'asa*, which is a non-declined verb".
The Shaykh : Is that all? In any case, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: this rare case is not to be analogized to. And the scholars of jurisprudence say: the rare case has no ruling, the rare case has no ruling, so the criterion is the rule. As for the anomalous case, it is not considered, and this is in everything. In everything, the anomalous case that deviates from its counterparts is not analogized to. Yes, one only excuses it and does not argue with it. Now, their saying *ma akhsara*, a small book, so I said *ma akhsara*, even though it is from *ikhtasar*. For this reason it is said: this book is *mukhtasar*, a passive participle. This is contrary to the rule because it has more than three letters, and because it is built for the passive. And yet the Arabs say: *ma akhsara*, *ma a'sahu*, he does such and such. If you were to read, O Sayyid, Sayyid, O Sayyid, if you were to read the Qur'an, it would be better for you and safer for you. Likewise, you say: *ma a'sahu*, *ma a'sahu* he does such and such, or by doing such and such. Here it is built from a correct triliteral verb, *'asa*, which is triliteral, but it is?
The student: It is static.
The Shaykh : It is static, but it is static. The author says: you do not analogize to these things, because they are heard and not analogized to, or memorized and not analogized to.
The student: *Ma a'sarahu*, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: *Ma a'sarahu*.