Explanation of the author's statement: "The way to reconcile these aspects is to say that the singular does not contradict the dual, nor the plural"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, so the singular does not contradict the dual, nor does it contradict the plural, because the singular when attached to a noun is general in scope, applying to one, two, or three.
As for reconciling what came in the form of the dual with the form of the plural. This is where there is a kind of difficulty. What came in the form of the dual, like:[Al-Ma'idah 5:64] and the form of the plural, like: [Ya-Sin 36:71] How do we reconcile them?
If we say that the minimum of the plural is two, then there is no contradiction at all, correct? The reason? Because "our hands" means two hands, "our eyes" means two eyes, so it does not contradict, it does not contradict the dual, so there is no contradiction at all between the dual and plural forms because their meanings are the same.
And if we say that the minimum of the plural is three, which is the well-known view, then the reconciliation between them is to say that it, to say that it, this is the correct statement, because it is the statement of the speaker.
The student: Is it broken?
The Shaykh : It is broken, yes.
It is to say that the intended meaning of the plural form is not its literal meaning of three or more, but rather, may Allah know best, it is intended for magnification and appropriateness.
Magnification, because the plural indicates greatness as you know, so if a person says "I said" or "we said," which is more indicative of greatness? "We said." The intended meaning of magnification or the plural is that it is intended for magnification.
And appropriateness, what is the appropriateness? He said: I mean the appropriateness of the attached noun to the noun it is attached to. Since the noun it is attached to, which is "na", is intended here for magnification without doubt, it was appropriate to bring the attached noun in the plural form to match the noun it is attached to, for the plural is more indicative of magnification than the singular and the dual. And if both the attached noun and the noun it is attached to indicate magnification, then a more emphatic magnification is achieved between them.
So this is the way to reconcile the dual and the plural.
Let us return a second time and say: What is the reconciliation between the singular, the dual, and the plural? The reconciliation between them is to say that the singular, when attached to a noun, right? indicates generality, applying to one, two, and more. Is that right?
As for reconciling the dual and the plural, if we say that the minimum of the plural is two, right? then there is no contradiction at all, because the plural means two because their meanings are the same. And if we say that the minimum of the plural is three, then the plural here is not intended in its linguistic meaning, but rather it is intended for magnification and appropriateness. Magnification, because the indication of the plural for greatness is more and stronger than the indication of the singular and the dual. And appropriateness, because it is attached to a pronoun indicating the plural, which is "na". So it was appropriate to make it plural in order to be like the pronoun, yes.
The questioner : Regarding ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The student: Perhaps someone might say: If we now say the eye of a human and the eye of a donkey, meaning the eye of a human does not resemble the eye of a donkey, but in reality it resembles it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So if we choose in the expression, meaning about the attributes of the Creator.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It does not resemble
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... the resemblance, perhaps the one who imagines might think that the difference that occurs, meaning.
The Shaykh : between an eye, between an attribute.
The questioner : between the eye of the created and the Creator.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : like the measure that occurs between some of the created, between some of them.
The Shaykh : That is, this is what you can, may Allah protect you, because we know that just as the difference that occurs between the eye of a human and the eye of a bird is not like the difference that occurs between the eye of a human and the eye of a sheep and the eye of an ant, if it has an eye.
As for reconciling what came in the form of the dual with the form of the plural. This is where there is a kind of difficulty. What came in the form of the dual, like:
Rather, both His hands are extended
بل يداه مبسوطتانfrom what Our hands have made, grazing livestock
مما عملت أيدينا أنعاماIf we say that the minimum of the plural is two, then there is no contradiction at all, correct? The reason? Because "our hands" means two hands, "our eyes" means two eyes, so it does not contradict, it does not contradict the dual, so there is no contradiction at all between the dual and plural forms because their meanings are the same.
And if we say that the minimum of the plural is three, which is the well-known view, then the reconciliation between them is to say that it, to say that it, this is the correct statement, because it is the statement of the speaker.
The student: Is it broken?
The Shaykh : It is broken, yes.
It is to say that the intended meaning of the plural form is not its literal meaning of three or more, but rather, may Allah know best, it is intended for magnification and appropriateness.
Magnification, because the plural indicates greatness as you know, so if a person says "I said" or "we said," which is more indicative of greatness? "We said." The intended meaning of magnification or the plural is that it is intended for magnification.
And appropriateness, what is the appropriateness? He said: I mean the appropriateness of the attached noun to the noun it is attached to. Since the noun it is attached to, which is "na", is intended here for magnification without doubt, it was appropriate to bring the attached noun in the plural form to match the noun it is attached to, for the plural is more indicative of magnification than the singular and the dual. And if both the attached noun and the noun it is attached to indicate magnification, then a more emphatic magnification is achieved between them.
So this is the way to reconcile the dual and the plural.
Let us return a second time and say: What is the reconciliation between the singular, the dual, and the plural? The reconciliation between them is to say that the singular, when attached to a noun, right? indicates generality, applying to one, two, and more. Is that right?
As for reconciling the dual and the plural, if we say that the minimum of the plural is two, right? then there is no contradiction at all, because the plural means two because their meanings are the same. And if we say that the minimum of the plural is three, then the plural here is not intended in its linguistic meaning, but rather it is intended for magnification and appropriateness. Magnification, because the indication of the plural for greatness is more and stronger than the indication of the singular and the dual. And appropriateness, because it is attached to a pronoun indicating the plural, which is "na". So it was appropriate to make it plural in order to be like the pronoun, yes.
The questioner : Regarding ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The student: Perhaps someone might say: If we now say the eye of a human and the eye of a donkey, meaning the eye of a human does not resemble the eye of a donkey, but in reality it resembles it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: So if we choose in the expression, meaning about the attributes of the Creator.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: It does not resemble
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... the resemblance, perhaps the one who imagines might think that the difference that occurs, meaning.
The Shaykh : between an eye, between an attribute.
The questioner : between the eye of the created and the Creator.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : like the measure that occurs between some of the created, between some of them.
The Shaykh : That is, this is what you can, may Allah protect you, because we know that just as the difference that occurs between the eye of a human and the eye of a bird is not like the difference that occurs between the eye of a human and the eye of a sheep and the eye of an ant, if it has an eye.