Reading from Ibn Aqil’s commentary (may Allah have mercy on him), with the Shaykh’s annotations: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Fine.
The reader: In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate: " The superlative form:
The superlative form is derived from the verb used for expressing wonder *** The superlative form and the verb 'abba (to refuse)
It is derived from verbs from which it is permissible to express wonder, in order to indicate superiority. It is an adjective on the pattern of 'af'ala. You say, for example, 'Zayd is better than 'Amr' and 'Khalid is more noble,' just as you say, 'How excellent Zayd is' and 'How noble Khalid is.' If it is not permissible to form the verb of wonder from a verb, it is not permissible to form the superlative form from it. Therefore, it is not formed from a verb with more than three letters, such as dahraja (to roll) and istakhraja (to extract); nor from a verb " .
The Shaykh : Okay, what do we do?
The reader: What do you mean?
The Shaykh : Here, if someone wants to mention the superiority of one person over another in rolling, what does he say?
The reader: He uses an intermediary.
The Shaykh : He says?
The reader: He says: So-and-so is more intense in rolling than so-and-so.
The Shaykh : More intense in rolling than so-and-so, correct, and likewise the second example.
The reader: " More intense in extraction " .
The Shaykh : More intense in extraction, yes.
The reader: " Nor from a non-transitive verb, such as na'ma (how good) and baysa (how bad), nor from a verb " .
The Shaykh : And what does he do?
The reader: He does not compare.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: This has lost its conditions.
The Shaykh : This is 'na'ma,' which, if it loses its condition, has no alternative. Yes, but you can say: 'Na'ma, the best of the people is so-and-so,' 'Na'ma, the best of the people is so-and-so,' okay.
The reader: " Nor from a verb that does not accept comparison, such as mata (to die) and fani (to perish), nor from a defective verb, such as kana (to be) and its sisters " .
The Shaykh : But it can be derived from this: mata (to die) and fani (to perish), if the intended meaning here is?
The reader: Speed.
The Shaykh : The speed of death, for example, or the intensity of the speed of its perishing, or something similar. In this case, it can be said: 'Ma fanahu!' meaning 'How fast it perished,' yes, correct.
The reader: Is there an intermediary here, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The reader: Or because of the intermediary, if it means?
The Shaykh : No, it can be said without an intermediary. It can be said without an intermediary, but the well-known view, according to the author's statement, is that an intermediary is used: 'How fast its perishing is' and 'How fast his death is,' yes.
The reader: " Nor from a negated verb, such as: 'ma 'aja bi al-dawa' (the medicine did not take effect), and 'ma daraba' (he did not strike), nor from a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala, such as " .
The Shaykh : Okay, what do we do?
The reader: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: He does not compare.
The Shaykh : It is not derived?!
The reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : I have not seen it, for example: 'I am more distressed by what so-and-so strikes,' 'I am more distressed by what so-and-so strikes.'
The reader: Without an intermediary.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: The intermediary!
The Shaykh : We brought it, yes?
The reader: 'Aja!
The Shaykh : 'Aja, it did not benefit! What is it?
The reader: 'Ma 'aja!
The Shaykh : No, 'ma' is a negation. Do you have the whole thing?
The reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: " Nor from a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala, such as hamma (red) and 'awwar (one-eyed) " .
The Shaykh : But it appears that they say: 'Aja only comes in a negated form. It must be from a negation. This is the difference between his saying: " 'ma 'aja " , and: " 'ma daraba " , because 'daraba' comes in a context of affirmation, unlike 'aja, yes.
The reader: " Nor from a verb in the passive voice, such as dhubba (was struck) and juna (was driven mad). An exception is their saying: 'He is more concise than such-and-such,' where they formed the superlative from ikhtasar (to be concise), which has more than three letters and is in the passive voice. They also said: 'Blacker than the crow's beak' and 'Whiter than milk,' forming the superlative exceptionally from a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala " .
The Shaykh : From a verb whose adjective.
The reader: " From a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala " .
The Shaykh : But the correct view is that this is permissible. Yes, the correct view is that this is permissible. It has been reported in some words:Sahih al-Bukhari 6579 The well-known version is: . Likewise, it is also said, 'This is blacker than this' and 'This is more lame than this,' meaning 'more intense in lameness,' yes.
The reader: In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate: " The superlative form:
The superlative form is derived from the verb used for expressing wonder *** The superlative form and the verb 'abba (to refuse)
It is derived from verbs from which it is permissible to express wonder, in order to indicate superiority. It is an adjective on the pattern of 'af'ala. You say, for example, 'Zayd is better than 'Amr' and 'Khalid is more noble,' just as you say, 'How excellent Zayd is' and 'How noble Khalid is.' If it is not permissible to form the verb of wonder from a verb, it is not permissible to form the superlative form from it. Therefore, it is not formed from a verb with more than three letters, such as dahraja (to roll) and istakhraja (to extract); nor from a verb " .
The Shaykh : Okay, what do we do?
The reader: What do you mean?
The Shaykh : Here, if someone wants to mention the superiority of one person over another in rolling, what does he say?
The reader: He uses an intermediary.
The Shaykh : He says?
The reader: He says: So-and-so is more intense in rolling than so-and-so.
The Shaykh : More intense in rolling than so-and-so, correct, and likewise the second example.
The reader: " More intense in extraction " .
The Shaykh : More intense in extraction, yes.
The reader: " Nor from a non-transitive verb, such as na'ma (how good) and baysa (how bad), nor from a verb " .
The Shaykh : And what does he do?
The reader: He does not compare.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: This has lost its conditions.
The Shaykh : This is 'na'ma,' which, if it loses its condition, has no alternative. Yes, but you can say: 'Na'ma, the best of the people is so-and-so,' 'Na'ma, the best of the people is so-and-so,' okay.
The reader: " Nor from a verb that does not accept comparison, such as mata (to die) and fani (to perish), nor from a defective verb, such as kana (to be) and its sisters " .
The Shaykh : But it can be derived from this: mata (to die) and fani (to perish), if the intended meaning here is?
The reader: Speed.
The Shaykh : The speed of death, for example, or the intensity of the speed of its perishing, or something similar. In this case, it can be said: 'Ma fanahu!' meaning 'How fast it perished,' yes, correct.
The reader: Is there an intermediary here, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The reader: Or because of the intermediary, if it means?
The Shaykh : No, it can be said without an intermediary. It can be said without an intermediary, but the well-known view, according to the author's statement, is that an intermediary is used: 'How fast its perishing is' and 'How fast his death is,' yes.
The reader: " Nor from a negated verb, such as: 'ma 'aja bi al-dawa' (the medicine did not take effect), and 'ma daraba' (he did not strike), nor from a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala, such as " .
The Shaykh : Okay, what do we do?
The reader: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: He does not compare.
The Shaykh : It is not derived?!
The reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : I have not seen it, for example: 'I am more distressed by what so-and-so strikes,' 'I am more distressed by what so-and-so strikes.'
The reader: Without an intermediary.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: The intermediary!
The Shaykh : We brought it, yes?
The reader: 'Aja!
The Shaykh : 'Aja, it did not benefit! What is it?
The reader: 'Ma 'aja!
The Shaykh : No, 'ma' is a negation. Do you have the whole thing?
The reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: " Nor from a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala, such as hamma (red) and 'awwar (one-eyed) " .
The Shaykh : But it appears that they say: 'Aja only comes in a negated form. It must be from a negation. This is the difference between his saying: " 'ma 'aja " , and: " 'ma daraba " , because 'daraba' comes in a context of affirmation, unlike 'aja, yes.
The reader: " Nor from a verb in the passive voice, such as dhubba (was struck) and juna (was driven mad). An exception is their saying: 'He is more concise than such-and-such,' where they formed the superlative from ikhtasar (to be concise), which has more than three letters and is in the passive voice. They also said: 'Blacker than the crow's beak' and 'Whiter than milk,' forming the superlative exceptionally from a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala " .
The Shaykh : From a verb whose adjective.
The reader: " From a verb whose adjective is on the pattern of 'af'ala " .
The Shaykh : But the correct view is that this is permissible. Yes, the correct view is that this is permissible. It has been reported in some words: