Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

the transitive verbs a‘tā (“to give”) and kasā (“to clothe”). It is not valid to suppose that the verb was first transferred to ‘atū (“to take”) and then prefixed with the transitive-making hamza, for this would distort the meaning: the exclamation concerns his giving, not his ‘atw, meaning his taking. The hamza here indicates exclamation and comparison, while the hamza of the underlying verb has been omitted. It therefore cannot be said that its purpose is to make the verb transitive.

They said: As for your claim that it is made transitive by lām in expressions such as mā adrabahu li-Zayd (“How hard he strikes Zayd!”), and so forth, the lām is not introduced here because the verb is intransitive, as you maintain. Rather, it strengthens the verb, whose governing force has been weakened by its inability to undergo inflectional variation. Confined to a single form, it departs from the normal behaviour of verbs, weakening its ability to require and govern its complement. It is therefore strengthened by lām, just as a governing expression is strengthened by it when its complement precedes it or when its own status is derivative.

This is the stronger position, as you can see (1).

Let us now return to our subject. According to the first group, Ahmad means “the one who praises his Lord more than anyone else”; according to the latter group, it means “the one most deserving and worthy of praise.” Its meaning is thus similar to that of Muhammad. The distinction, however, is that Muhammad denotes someone possessing many qualities for which he is praised, whereas Ahmad denotes someone whose praise surpasses that accorded to others in excellence. Muhammad thus concerns abundance and quantity, while Ahmad concerns the nature and quality of praise. He therefore deserves more praise than anyone else, and praise of a higher order than anyone else deserves. He receives the most abundant and finest praise bestowed upon human beings. Both names thus refer to the recipient of praise, which praises him more emphatically and conveys a fuller meaning.

(1) A debate on this issue took place between Abū Ja‘far al-Nahhās and Abū al-‘Abbās ibn Wallād, recorded by al-Sakhāwī in Sifr al-sa‘āda (2:566–586).
«أعطى» و «كسا» المتعدِّي، ولا يصح تقدير نقله إلى عطُو: إذا تناوَلَ، ثم أدخلتَ عليه همزة التعدية، لفساد المعنى، فإن التعجب إنما وقع من إعطائه، لا من عَطْوِه وهو تناوله، والهمزة التي فيه همزة التعجب والتفضيل، وحذفت همزته التي في فعله، فلا يصح أن يقال: هي للتعدية. قالوا: وأما قولكم: إنه عُدِّي باللام في نحو: ما أضربه لزيد، إلى آخره؛ فالإتيانُ باللام هاهنا ليس لما ذكرتم من لزوم الفعل، وإنما أُتي بها تقويةً له لما ضعف بمنعه من التصرف، وألزم طريقةً واحدةً خرج بها عن سَنَن الأفعال، فضعف عن اقتضائه وعمله، فقُوِّي باللام كما يقوَّى بها عند تقدُّم معموله عليه، وعند فرعيته. وهذا المذهب هو الراجح كما تراه (١). فلنرجع إلى المقصود، فنقول: تقدير «أحمد» على قول الأولين: أحمدُ النَّاس لربِّه، وعلى قول هؤلاء: أحقُّ الناس وأولاهم بأن يُحمَد، فيكون كـ «محمَّد» في المعنى، إلا أن الفرق بينهما أن محمَّدًا هو كثير الخصال التي يُحمَد عليها، و أحمد هو الذي يُحمَد أفضلَ ما يُحمَد غيرُه، فمحمَّد في الكثرة والكمية، وأحمد في الصفة والكيفية؛ فيستحِقُّ من الحمد أكثرَ ما يستحِقُّ غيرُه، وأفضلَ مما يستحِقُّ غيرُه، فيُحمَد أكثرَ حمدٍ وأفضلَ حمدٍ حُمِدَه البشرُ. فالاسمان واقعان على المفعول، وهذا أبلغ في مدحه وأكمل معنًى.
(١) وقد وقعت في المسألة مناظرة بين أبي جعفر النحاس وأبي العباس بن ولَّاد، نقلها السخاوي في «سفر السعادة» (٢/ ٥٦٦ - ٥٨٦).

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies