Explanation of the words of Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): "Derive from its source for the expression of wonder *** Af'ala for the superlative, and Ab the one who refuses."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And for this reason he said: "Derive from its source for the expression of wonder *** Af'ala":
"Derive": is a verb of command, and the command is for obligation, is that right?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : No, it is for obligation according to the rule of the grammarians, it is not the obligation that makes a person sinful.
And his saying: "from its source for the expression of wonder": means from a verbal noun from which the verb of wonder is derived, where is the object of derive?! Af'ala for the superlative, Af'ala for the superlative, to prefer one thing over another, in the author's saying: "from its source for the expression of wonder": is a reference to what came before, and regarding the expression of wonder he said:
"And derive both from a trilateral verb, conjugated *** Capable of excess, complete, not one of negation
And not one of a description resembling Ashhala *** And not one following the path of Fu'ila".
So let us return to what came before, and we say: the rule here, the rule is: "What is permissible to be derived for the expression of wonder, is permissible to be derived for the name of the superlative", "What is permissible to be derived for the verb of wonder, is permissible to be derived for the name of the superlative", he says: "And what is not, then it is not"?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because he said: "And Ab the one who refuses", "And Ab the one who refuses":
Ab: -By Allah, this is its parsing!!- it means Ab, Aib?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A verb.
The Shaykh : A verb of command, a verb of command, yes, it means refuse or prevent, prevent the one who prevented, okay, Aib: is a verb of command built on fathah due to its connection to the estimated nūn of emphasis.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No?! Yes, built on fathah?
The student: Built on the deletion of the alif.
The Shaykh : Built on the deletion of the alif, where? And the fathah before it is evidence for it.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And its subject is hidden by necessity, estimated as: you, "you the one", the one, the one this ...?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Where is it?
The student: From the relative pronouns.
The Shaykh : A relative pronoun? Then: the one: meaning the one who, where and how do we parse it? The one: is a relative pronoun built on sukun in the position of accusative, where did the yā' go? It was deleted for a morphological reason, or as they say: it was deleted arbitrarily?
The student: Is there anything deleted arbitrarily?
The Shaykh : No, is there anything deleted arbitrarily meaning by force.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Like what?
The student: The necessity of poetry.
The Shaykh : No, not one of, the necessity in poetry does not delete in other speech, for example: the word hand, and the word blood, and the like, these are on two letters, and a noun cannot be on two letters, he says: that the third letter was deleted arbitrarily, arbitrarily means that the Arabs did this thing and deleted it, without a morphological justification, so the one: is a language variant of the one who, where, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : A language variant of the one who, so it is parsed as built on sukun, okay, let us see now if the name of the superlative is derived from a quadrilateral verb?
The student: It is not derived.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not derived.
The Shaykh : It is not derived?!
The student: It is not derived.
The Shaykh : Okay, Zayd is more generous than 'Amr, where? From Akrama!
The student: Karam.
Another student: From Karam.
The Shaykh : From the trilateral Karam, okay, if I want to derive it from Akrama, and Ashadd or Ashid or the like of them, I say: Zayd is more generous in generosity than 'Amr, or not?!
If I want to inform about Zayd that he is more generous to people, I say: more generous in generosity than 'Amr, I do not say: more generous than 'Amr, while in our language it is here?
The student: It is derived.
The Shaykh : It is derived, if he says: so-and-so is more generous, it means more generous than 'Amr, it is not more generous meaning his attribute of generosity is stronger, okay, is the name of the superlative derived from 'Asa?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : So I say: Zayd is more 'Asa than 'Amr? Where?
The student: It is not possible.
The Shaykh : It is not possible?! It is not possible, because it is static, okay, is it derived: so-and-so is more dead than 'Amr, Zayd is more dead than 'Amr?
The student: No, not capable.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Not capable.
The Shaykh : Not capable of gradation, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay: Zayd is more blind than 'Amr?
The student: Not capable.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Not capable.
The Shaykh : Not capable?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and what is the answer to His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Isra 17:72] Where?
The student: In the blindness of the heart there is gradation, but the blindness of the eye does not have gradation.
Another student: But this is blindness of the heart, or is he more blind!!
The Shaykh : !
The student: This is emphasis, O Shaykh.
Another student: It is not emphasis.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not emphasis of anything.
The Shaykh : No: This is a description, so in the Hereafter he is more blind and more astray in path.
The student: Or a comparison to the one before it, meaning.
The Shaykh : So in the Hereafter he is more blind, meaning?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : A description?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : A description, so: is a predicate for a deleted subject, meaning and he is more astray in path, yes, okay.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes? No, we do not say except from other than Bays, from Bu's yes, okay, do I say: so-and-so is more truthful in truth than so-and-so?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It does not include.
The Shaykh : No, so-and-so is more truthful in truth than so-and-so!
The student: It does not enter.
The Shaykh : Where? And Ibn Malik says?
The student: "Complete".
The Shaykh : Complete, good, okay, do I say: Ghanim's shemagh is redder than 'Abd al-Rahman's shemagh?
The student: No.
Another student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Where? Why?
The student: Because it is on Af'ala.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: From Fu'ul.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The description from it is on Af'ala.
The Shaykh : The description from it is on Af'ala, so it is not permissible like this?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And this last condition has disagreement, and the correct one is that it is permissible, you say: this ink is blacker than this, or not?
The student : Yes
The Shaykh : And you say: this carpet is redder than this carpet, and you say: this is yellower than this, so the correct one is its permissibility, if someone says: if you permit it, the superlative becomes confused with the description, because there is a difference between your saying: this is yellow, meaning its description is yellowness, and this is yellower than this, is there a difference between them or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If someone says: if you permit the superlative in such a case, it necessitates confusion, which is the confusion of the description and what is it? with the superlative, we said: there is no confusion, what clarifies the meaning?!
The student: The preferred one.
The Shaykh : It is clarified by mentioning the one preferred over, I do not say: this carpet is only black or only red, I said: this carpet is redder than this carpet, so the min is the one that specifies that it is a name of the superlative, and those who prohibited it do not have a doubt except that this becomes confused with this, and we say: that the confusion is removed by estimating min, the confusion is removed by estimating min or its presence, okay, if I say: Zayd is sicker than 'Amr, this is that it is built from murida where, is it permissible?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, Zayd is more concerned with the matter than 'Amr, where?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible?!
The student: No.
The Shaykh : What is the reason?
The student: Built for the unknown.
The Shaykh : Because it is built for the unknown, because it is said: 'uni bi-l-amr, and it is not said: 'ana bi-l-amr, okay, if I say: Zayd is more concerned with the matter than 'Amr? I want it from 'atana not from 'uni bihi?!
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible either because it is more than the trilateral, so the name of the superlative, its ruling in what is derived from it and what is not derived from it is the ruling of the verb of wonder, and it is referred to what came before, okay.
"Derive": is a verb of command, and the command is for obligation, is that right?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : No, it is for obligation according to the rule of the grammarians, it is not the obligation that makes a person sinful.
And his saying: "from its source for the expression of wonder": means from a verbal noun from which the verb of wonder is derived, where is the object of derive?! Af'ala for the superlative, Af'ala for the superlative, to prefer one thing over another, in the author's saying: "from its source for the expression of wonder": is a reference to what came before, and regarding the expression of wonder he said:
"And derive both from a trilateral verb, conjugated *** Capable of excess, complete, not one of negation
And not one of a description resembling Ashhala *** And not one following the path of Fu'ila".
So let us return to what came before, and we say: the rule here, the rule is: "What is permissible to be derived for the expression of wonder, is permissible to be derived for the name of the superlative", "What is permissible to be derived for the verb of wonder, is permissible to be derived for the name of the superlative", he says: "And what is not, then it is not"?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because he said: "And Ab the one who refuses", "And Ab the one who refuses":
Ab: -By Allah, this is its parsing!!- it means Ab, Aib?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: A verb.
The Shaykh : A verb of command, a verb of command, yes, it means refuse or prevent, prevent the one who prevented, okay, Aib: is a verb of command built on fathah due to its connection to the estimated nūn of emphasis.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No?! Yes, built on fathah?
The student: Built on the deletion of the alif.
The Shaykh : Built on the deletion of the alif, where? And the fathah before it is evidence for it.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And its subject is hidden by necessity, estimated as: you, "you the one", the one, the one this ...?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Where is it?
The student: From the relative pronouns.
The Shaykh : A relative pronoun? Then: the one: meaning the one who, where and how do we parse it? The one: is a relative pronoun built on sukun in the position of accusative, where did the yā' go? It was deleted for a morphological reason, or as they say: it was deleted arbitrarily?
The student: Is there anything deleted arbitrarily?
The Shaykh : No, is there anything deleted arbitrarily meaning by force.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Like what?
The student: The necessity of poetry.
The Shaykh : No, not one of, the necessity in poetry does not delete in other speech, for example: the word hand, and the word blood, and the like, these are on two letters, and a noun cannot be on two letters, he says: that the third letter was deleted arbitrarily, arbitrarily means that the Arabs did this thing and deleted it, without a morphological justification, so the one: is a language variant of the one who, where, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : A language variant of the one who, so it is parsed as built on sukun, okay, let us see now if the name of the superlative is derived from a quadrilateral verb?
The student: It is not derived.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not derived.
The Shaykh : It is not derived?!
The student: It is not derived.
The Shaykh : Okay, Zayd is more generous than 'Amr, where? From Akrama!
The student: Karam.
Another student: From Karam.
The Shaykh : From the trilateral Karam, okay, if I want to derive it from Akrama, and Ashadd or Ashid or the like of them, I say: Zayd is more generous in generosity than 'Amr, or not?!
If I want to inform about Zayd that he is more generous to people, I say: more generous in generosity than 'Amr, I do not say: more generous than 'Amr, while in our language it is here?
The student: It is derived.
The Shaykh : It is derived, if he says: so-and-so is more generous, it means more generous than 'Amr, it is not more generous meaning his attribute of generosity is stronger, okay, is the name of the superlative derived from 'Asa?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : So I say: Zayd is more 'Asa than 'Amr? Where?
The student: It is not possible.
The Shaykh : It is not possible?! It is not possible, because it is static, okay, is it derived: so-and-so is more dead than 'Amr, Zayd is more dead than 'Amr?
The student: No, not capable.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: Not capable.
The Shaykh : Not capable of gradation, or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay: Zayd is more blind than 'Amr?
The student: Not capable.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Not capable.
The Shaykh : Not capable?!
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and what is the answer to His saying, the Exalted:
And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way.
ومن كان في هذه أعمى فهو في الآخرة أعمى وأضل سبيلاThe student: In the blindness of the heart there is gradation, but the blindness of the eye does not have gradation.
Another student: But this is blindness of the heart, or is he more blind!!
The Shaykh :
Whoever is blind in this
من كان في هذه أعمىThe student: This is emphasis, O Shaykh.
Another student: It is not emphasis.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not emphasis of anything.
The Shaykh : No:
And whoever is blind in this
ومن كان في هذه أعمىThe student: Or a comparison to the one before it, meaning.
The Shaykh : So in the Hereafter he is more blind, meaning?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : A description?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : A description, so:
and led astray from the path
أضل سبيلاThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes? No, we do not say except from other than Bays, from Bu's yes, okay, do I say: so-and-so is more truthful in truth than so-and-so?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It does not include.
The Shaykh : No, so-and-so is more truthful in truth than so-and-so!
The student: It does not enter.
The Shaykh : Where? And Ibn Malik says?
The student: "Complete".
The Shaykh : Complete, good, okay, do I say: Ghanim's shemagh is redder than 'Abd al-Rahman's shemagh?
The student: No.
Another student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Where? Why?
The student: Because it is on Af'ala.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: From Fu'ul.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The description from it is on Af'ala.
The Shaykh : The description from it is on Af'ala, so it is not permissible like this?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And this last condition has disagreement, and the correct one is that it is permissible, you say: this ink is blacker than this, or not?
The student : Yes
The Shaykh : And you say: this carpet is redder than this carpet, and you say: this is yellower than this, so the correct one is its permissibility, if someone says: if you permit it, the superlative becomes confused with the description, because there is a difference between your saying: this is yellow, meaning its description is yellowness, and this is yellower than this, is there a difference between them or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : If someone says: if you permit the superlative in such a case, it necessitates confusion, which is the confusion of the description and what is it? with the superlative, we said: there is no confusion, what clarifies the meaning?!
The student: The preferred one.
The Shaykh : It is clarified by mentioning the one preferred over, I do not say: this carpet is only black or only red, I said: this carpet is redder than this carpet, so the min is the one that specifies that it is a name of the superlative, and those who prohibited it do not have a doubt except that this becomes confused with this, and we say: that the confusion is removed by estimating min, the confusion is removed by estimating min or its presence, okay, if I say: Zayd is sicker than 'Amr, this is that it is built from murida where, is it permissible?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, Zayd is more concerned with the matter than 'Amr, where?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible?!
The student: No.
The Shaykh : What is the reason?
The student: Built for the unknown.
The Shaykh : Because it is built for the unknown, because it is said: 'uni bi-l-amr, and it is not said: 'ana bi-l-amr, okay, if I say: Zayd is more concerned with the matter than 'Amr? I want it from 'atana not from 'uni bihi?!
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible either because it is more than the trilateral, so the name of the superlative, its ruling in what is derived from it and what is not derived from it is the ruling of the verb of wonder, and it is referred to what came before, okay.