Adam; this is because discourse varies according to the circumstances of the person addressed.

We further say: Several considerations demonstrate that this religion is superior.

First: Although this construction originally serves to deny that anything is better—since the negation applies to the comparative form—customary usage often implies the superiority of the entity introduced by min (“than”), which in an affirmative statement is the entity surpassed. Thus, when you say, “This religion is better than that one,” the entity introduced by “than” is the one surpassed, while the first is the one preferred. But when you say, “Nothing is better than this,” “What is better than this?”, “There is no one among them better than this person,” “I know no one more learned than Zayd,” “There is no one among the people more truthful than ‘Amr,” or “There is no one among them better than him,” this construction indicates that the person in question is the best, the most learned, or the finest among them.

Indeed, this construction has acquired an established conventional meaning: it denies superiority to the entity described by the comparative and affirms the superiority over all the others of the entity introduced by “than.” It thus entails denying their superiority and affirming his superiority over them. It also incorporates the meaning of exception, as though you had said, “No one among them is superior except this person,” or “No one among them holds precedence except this person.” Similarly, when (in) is prevented from exercising its grammatical function by the negative particle mā, it comes to convey both negation and affirmation.

The same applies to exception. Although its original function is to exclude something from a judgment, it has acquired an established conventional meaning whereby the exception receives the opposite judgment to that applying to the group from which it is excepted. Thus, an exception to a negative statement constitutes an affirmation,