Explanation of the seventh verse, which is his saying: "And Allah decrees abundant gifts for me and for him in the degrees of the Hereafter"

The Shaykh : Then he said: "And Allah decrees abundant gifts **for me and for him in the degrees of the Hereafter"
Yes, gifts, bounties, abundant and many. For me and for him? For whom? For Ibn Ma'ati. Why did he start with himself? He says: "The precedence belongs to Ibn Ma'ati." Because when a person starts, when he makes a supplication, he should start with himself. Musa said: And Nuh said: Even his parents, he did not put them before himself; he put himself before his parents: "My Lord, forgive me and my parents."
"With abundant gifts" But the annotators are like dust. Yes, the annotators are like dust; they surpass the great ones... They say that behind Ibn Malik, he did not say, "And Allah decrees with satisfaction and mercy for me and for him and for the entire Ummah," and... himself, Ibn Ma'ati, and he leaves the people. Yes, "And Allah decrees abundant gifts for me and for him" Yes, the Messenger says in his prayer: and so on. And he supplicates for himself: "O Allah, the first thing he starts with in prayer is: O Allah, distance me from my sins." Yes, and without doubt, he is the most sincere to the Ummah for the Ummah, and the most merciful to the believers. It is obligatory for him to supplicate for himself and for others. So he supplicates for himself, and he supplicates for himself and for those who share in his work, and he supplicates for himself and his parents. Yes. Do we say, "O Ibn Malik, you made a mistake? Why did you say 'for me and for him in the degrees of the Hereafter'? If you had said, 'And Allah decrees with satisfaction and mercy for me and for him and for the entire Ummah,' we would say: There is absolutely no objection to Ibn Malik."
Ibn Malik mentioned a man who preceded him in doing good, so he supplicated for him and for himself. This is a right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
There is an issue in his saying: "With abundant gifts" and he did not say "with abundant gifts" (in the plural form). As the Exalted said: He did not say "fixed" (in the singular form). Yes, we say: It is permissible to say "abundant" (plural) and "abundant" (singular). Yes, but they say: For the plural of few, the most eloquent is agreement. For the plural of few, the most eloquent is agreement, and for the plural of many, the most eloquent is the singular. This is for inanimate objects. Of course, gifts are inanimate. Are gifts a plural of few or a plural of many? No, the sound plural, the sound plural from the masculine plural and the feminine plural, is all a plural of few. Yes, but they say: Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said "with abundant gifts" (singular adjective) first for the sake of the meter. And as we said, the meter compels a person to do something else that is more appropriate. And the second thing: It seems that he (may Allah have mercy on him) intended "with abundant gifts" because when "abundance" indicates multiplicity, he dispensed with the word "abundant" (plural) by the meaning. Yes. And in any case, the rule we benefit from—let us leave the discussion of Ibn Malik—is "It is permissible in describing a plural of inanimate objects: if the plural is of many, the most eloquent is the singular; and if it is a plural of few, the most eloquent is agreement. And the reverse is permissible" The reverse is permissible, meaning it is permissible to use the plural when the most eloquent is the singular, and it is permissible to use the singular when the most eloquent is agreement. This is unlike the dual; the dual requires agreement.