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 attribute to the beginning of a phrase and the beginning of what *** is compounded by blending, and to the second of two complete ones
an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab *** or what is defined by the second. It is obligatory
to attribute to the first in everything other than this *** as long as no ambiguity is feared, like 'Abd al-Asahl.
When attributing to a compound name, if it is a compound of a phrase or a compound of blending, drop its end and attach the yaa of attribution to its beginning ".
The Shaykh : And it is attached.
The reader: " And attach the yaa of attribution to its beginning. So you say in Ta'abbat Shara: Ta'abbati, and in Baalbek: Ba'li. And if it is a compound of addition, if its beginning is Ibn or Ab, or if it is defined by its end, drop its beginning and attach the yaa of attribution to its end. So you say in Ibn al-Zubayr: Zubayri, and in Abu Bakr: Bakri, and in Ghulam Zayd: Zaydi. If it is not so, then if no ambiguity is feared when dropping its end ".
The Shaykh : This is Ghulam Zayd...
The student: Definite.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Because it is a definite noun.
The Shaykh : ... Ghulam Zayd, but he is one of them, yes.
The reader: " If it is not so, then if no ambiguity is feared when dropping its end, drop its end and attribute to its beginning. So you say in Imru' al-Qays ".
The Shaykh : Imru' al-Qays.
The reader: " So you say in Imru' al-Qays: Imru'i. And if ambiguity is feared, drop its beginning and attribute to its end. So you say in 'Abd al-Asahl and 'Abd al-Qays: Asahli and Qaysi ".
The Shaykh : Yes, we mentioned that this is a rule among the grammarians, but what about the language? Huh? These rules are broken. They say in 'Abd al-Dar?
The student: 'Abdari.
The Shaykh : 'Abdari, and in 'Abd Shams?
The student: 'Abshami.
The Shaykh : 'Abshami, it is not according to these rules, but as we said and say, the Arabs are the ones who judge us, and we do not judge them.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... in the end, Shamsi?
The Shaykh : It is possible, but they say the original...
The student: meaning without there being ambiguity...
The Shaykh : ...
The student: it can be attributed...
The Shaykh : ... the context specifies it.
The student: Qays?
The Shaykh : Even Qays...
The student : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: 'Abd Allah?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: 'Abd Allah?
The Shaykh : This is like 'Abdi, the context specifies it...
an addition beginning with Ibn or Ab *** or what is defined by the second. It is obligatory
to attribute to the first in everything other than this *** as long as no ambiguity is feared, like 'Abd al-Asahl.
When attributing to a compound name, if it is a compound of a phrase or a compound of blending, drop its end and attach the yaa of attribution to its beginning ".
The Shaykh : And it is attached.
The reader: " And attach the yaa of attribution to its beginning. So you say in Ta'abbat Shara: Ta'abbati, and in Baalbek: Ba'li. And if it is a compound of addition, if its beginning is Ibn or Ab, or if it is defined by its end, drop its beginning and attach the yaa of attribution to its end. So you say in Ibn al-Zubayr: Zubayri, and in Abu Bakr: Bakri, and in Ghulam Zayd: Zaydi. If it is not so, then if no ambiguity is feared when dropping its end ".
The Shaykh : This is Ghulam Zayd...
The student: Definite.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Because it is a definite noun.
The Shaykh : ... Ghulam Zayd, but he is one of them, yes.
The reader: " If it is not so, then if no ambiguity is feared when dropping its end, drop its end and attribute to its beginning. So you say in Imru' al-Qays ".
The Shaykh : Imru' al-Qays.
The reader: " So you say in Imru' al-Qays: Imru'i. And if ambiguity is feared, drop its beginning and attribute to its end. So you say in 'Abd al-Asahl and 'Abd al-Qays: Asahli and Qaysi ".
The Shaykh : Yes, we mentioned that this is a rule among the grammarians, but what about the language? Huh? These rules are broken. They say in 'Abd al-Dar?
The student: 'Abdari.
The Shaykh : 'Abdari, and in 'Abd Shams?
The student: 'Abshami.
The Shaykh : 'Abshami, it is not according to these rules, but as we said and say, the Arabs are the ones who judge us, and we do not judge them.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ... in the end, Shamsi?
The Shaykh : It is possible, but they say the original...
The student: meaning without there being ambiguity...
The Shaykh : ...
The student: it can be attributed...
The Shaykh : ... the context specifies it.
The student: Qays?
The Shaykh : Even Qays...
The student : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: 'Abd Allah?
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: 'Abd Allah?
The Shaykh : This is like 'Abdi, the context specifies it...