Reading from Ibn Aqil’s commentary (may Allah have mercy on him), with the Shaykh’s annotations: " .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: " And following 'al' is like 'ma' with the definite article *** A possessive has two faces regarding the definite article
This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' and if *** you do not intend it, it is like what it is paired with:
If the superlative adjective is with 'al', it must agree with what precedes it in singularity, masculinity, and other aspects, so you say: Zayd al-afdal, al-Zaydaniyya al-afdalan, al-Zayduna al-afdalu, Hind al-fadla, al-Hindaniyya al-fadlayn, and al-Hindat al-fudl, or al-fudaliyyat ".
The Shaykh : Yes, al-fudl.
The reader: Al-fudl!
The Shaykh : No, what I heard was al-fadl.
The reader: Al-fadl.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: " And it is not permissible for it not to agree with what precedes it, so do not say: al-Zayduna al-afdal, or al-Zaydaniyya al-afdalan, or Hind al-afdal, or al-Hindaniyya al-afdalan, or al-Hindat al-afdal. It is also not permissible to pair it with 'min', so do not say: Zayd al-afdal min 'Amr. As for his saying:
And I am not the most numerous of them in pebbles *** But honor is for the numerous one:
This is explained by the addition of 'al' and the original being: And I am not more numerous than them, or by making 'min them' attached to a deleted noun that is bare of 'al', not to what 'al' was added to, and the estimation is: And I am not the most numerous ".
The Shaykh : And I am not!
The reader: " And I am not the most numerous, more numerous than them ".
The student: Here it is bare, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: We have: " attached to a deleted noun that is bare ".
The Shaykh : Bare, in my view. What did you put it in?
The reader: No.
The Shaykh : In my view, it is in the accusative case.
The reader: We have it in the genitive case.
The Shaykh : What you have is better. The state (hal) from an indefinite noun is close.
The reader: Is the bare one the deleted noun or the attached one?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The reader: Is the bare one the deleted noun or the attached one?
The Shaykh : A deleted noun that is bare. The deleted noun, the author said, you say: " And I am not the most numerous, more numerous than them in pebbles ", or it is interpreted as the addition of 'al', and the original is: And I am not more numerous than them in pebbles. This is what led the author to interpret the verse as one of these two possibilities: for the sake of the soundness of the rule, because the rule is: " that 'min' does not enter upon what is decorated with 'al' ", but if it were said that it occurs by way of rarity and infrequency, that would not be impossible. As for us going to the trouble of saying: 'al' is superfluous, or that there is a superlative adjective bare of 'al', there is no need for that. We say: This is one of the rare matters. Yes.
This is if you intend the meaning of 'min' and if *** you do not intend it, it is like what it is paired with:
If the superlative adjective is with 'al', it must agree with what precedes it in singularity, masculinity, and other aspects, so you say: Zayd al-afdal, al-Zaydaniyya al-afdalan, al-Zayduna al-afdalu, Hind al-fadla, al-Hindaniyya al-fadlayn, and al-Hindat al-fudl, or al-fudaliyyat ".
The Shaykh : Yes, al-fudl.
The reader: Al-fudl!
The Shaykh : No, what I heard was al-fadl.
The reader: Al-fadl.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: " And it is not permissible for it not to agree with what precedes it, so do not say: al-Zayduna al-afdal, or al-Zaydaniyya al-afdalan, or Hind al-afdal, or al-Hindaniyya al-afdalan, or al-Hindat al-afdal. It is also not permissible to pair it with 'min', so do not say: Zayd al-afdal min 'Amr. As for his saying:
And I am not the most numerous of them in pebbles *** But honor is for the numerous one:
This is explained by the addition of 'al' and the original being: And I am not more numerous than them, or by making 'min them' attached to a deleted noun that is bare of 'al', not to what 'al' was added to, and the estimation is: And I am not the most numerous ".
The Shaykh : And I am not!
The reader: " And I am not the most numerous, more numerous than them ".
The student: Here it is bare, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The reader: We have: " attached to a deleted noun that is bare ".
The Shaykh : Bare, in my view. What did you put it in?
The reader: No.
The Shaykh : In my view, it is in the accusative case.
The reader: We have it in the genitive case.
The Shaykh : What you have is better. The state (hal) from an indefinite noun is close.
The reader: Is the bare one the deleted noun or the attached one?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The reader: Is the bare one the deleted noun or the attached one?
The Shaykh : A deleted noun that is bare. The deleted noun, the author said, you say: " And I am not the most numerous, more numerous than them in pebbles ", or it is interpreted as the addition of 'al', and the original is: And I am not more numerous than them in pebbles. This is what led the author to interpret the verse as one of these two possibilities: for the sake of the soundness of the rule, because the rule is: " that 'min' does not enter upon what is decorated with 'al' ", but if it were said that it occurs by way of rarity and infrequency, that would not be impossible. As for us going to the trouble of saying: 'al' is superfluous, or that there is a superlative adjective bare of 'al', there is no need for that. We say: This is one of the rare matters. Yes.