"He said: Labbaik, Allahumma labbaik, labbaik, la sharika laka labbaik"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We begin with the talbiyah "Labbaik, Allahumma labbaik". This talbiyah is very great; Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah called it tawhid (the oneness of Allah). He said (may Allah be pleased with him) "When his camel stood still on the open plain, he proclaimed the tawhid". And tawhid is what all the messengers called people to [Al-Anbya 21:25]. So let us look at "Labbaik, Allahumma labbaik". "Labbaik" is a word of response. The evidence for this is what is established in the authentic collections that Allah the Exalted says on the Day of Resurrection, "O Adam," and he says, "Labbaik." So it is a word of response and it carries the meaning of staying, from their saying "alaba bi al-makan," meaning he stayed in it. So it includes both response and staying: response to Allah and staying in His obedience. For this reason, some of them explained it by saying "Labbaik, I am responding to you and staying in your obedience". This is an explanation by meaning, and there is no doubt that this is its meaning. If someone asks, "Where is the call from Allah to which the pilgrim in ihram responds?" we say it is His saying, the Exalted [Al-Hajj 22:27] "Proclaim it to them, announce it to them" [Al-Hajj 22:27] "They will come to you on foot." O Sami, does it mean not females? What is the meaning?
The questioner : For the sake of predominance.
The Shaykh : For the sake of predominance. "Not females" means on their feet; the meaning is not the opposite of females. The evidence is that "on their feet" is followed by "and on every lean camel they will come from every deep valley." This is a useful rule for you in tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis): one may know the meaning of a word by what is contrasted with it. From this is His saying, the Exalted, which is more hidden than the verse with us:[An-Nisa 4:71] "The meaning of 'thabat' (steadfastness) is being scattered, even though 'thabat' is far from being understood by a person in this meaning. But when it is mentioned after "or disperse all together," it is known that the intended meaning of 'thabat' is being scattered. So, we say, "Labbaik" means I am responding to your call and staying in it. As for the duplication here, is the intended meaning actual duplication, i.e., I responded to you twice, or is the intended meaning absolute multiplication? The first or the second?
The attendees: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, because the meaning is response after response and staying after staying. So the intended meaning is absolute multiplication, i.e., absolute number, and the intended meaning is not just twice. For this reason, the grammarians said it is annexed to the dual but is not a true dual, because the intended meaning is what? Plurality and a large number. So, why did it come with a yaa indicating that it is in the accusative case? They said because it is a verbal noun for a verb that is necessarily omitted and not combined with it. The estimation is "I alababtu ilababayn laka," meaning I stayed in my place for two instances for you. But an omission occurred in it: the omission of the hamza, and it became "lababayn," then the second ba was also omitted and it was said "labbaik." So the yaa here is a sign of inflection; it is in the accusative case by what? By a verb that is necessarily omitted. So it is an absolute object for a verb that is necessarily omitted. So, "Allahumma labbaik," what is the meaning of "Allahumma"? It means O Allah. But the yaa of the call was omitted and the mimm was substituted for it, and the mimm was placed at the end and was not in the place of the yaa. So two questions come to us: The first question is why was the yaa substituted with the mimm, and why was the substitute moved to the end and not in the place of the substituted? It is said regarding the first that the mimm is more indicative of plurality, and for this reason it is one of the signs of plurality, like "ila-him" for the plural. So it is as if the supplicant gathered his heart upon his Lord, the Exalted and Majestic, because he says "O Allah." And secondly, as for its being moved, it is for the sake of seeking good by beginning with the mention of the name of Allah, the Exalted. "Allahumma." And his saying "labbaik," is this from the chapter of verbal emphasis or semantic emphasis? The second. It is verbal; the word of the first did not change, but it has a new meaning. It is repeated and emphasized that he is responding to his Lord and staying in His obedience. "Labbaik, Allahumma labbaik, labbaik, la sharika laka labbaik..." The third is because you are responding to whom? You are responding to Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, and every time you respond to Him, you increase in faith in Him and longing for Him, so the emphasis is in accordance with wisdom. For this reason, you should feel, when you say "labbaik," that you are feeling the call of Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, to you and your response to Him, not just words that are said. "Labbaik, la sharika laka," does "la sharika laka" mean no partner for you in the talbiyah, or no partner for you in everything?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second, because it is more general. It means no partner for you in your dominion, no partner for you in your divinity, no partner for you in your names and attributes, and no partner for you in everything that is specific to you, including this response of mine. So I am sincere to you in it; I did not perform the Hajj for showing off or for reputation, nor for wealth, nor for anything else. I only performed the Hajj for you and responded to you only. And the grammatical analysis of his saying "la sharika laka" is that "la" is a negator of the genus, "sharika" is its name, and "laka" is its predicate. The negator of the genus is more general than the negator of absolute negation, because the negator of the genus negates anything of this, unlike if you say "la rajula fi al-bayt" (there is no man in the house) with the nominative case; this is not a negator of the genus, this is absolute negation. For this reason, it is permissible to say "la rajulun fi al-bayt bal rajulan" (there is no man in the house, but two men), but if you say "la rajula fi al-bayt bal rajulan" (there is no man in the house, but two men), the people who know grammar will object to you and say this is wrong. It is not correct to say "la rajula fi al-bayt bal rajulan"; you negate the genus first and then return to affirm it; it is not possible. So, in any case, "la sharika lahu" is a negator of the genus and the most general in negation.
And We sent not before you any messenger except that We revealed to him that, "There is no deity except Me, so worship Me."
وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول إلا نوحي إليه أنه لا إله إلا أنا فاعبدونAnd proclaim to the people the Hajj [pilgrimage]; they will come to you on foot
وأذّن في الناس بالحج يأتوك رجالاًthey will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass -
يأتوك رجالاً وعلى كل ضامر يأتين من كل فج عميقThe questioner : For the sake of predominance.
The Shaykh : For the sake of predominance. "Not females" means on their feet; the meaning is not the opposite of females. The evidence is that "on their feet" is followed by "and on every lean camel they will come from every deep valley." This is a useful rule for you in tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis): one may know the meaning of a word by what is contrasted with it. From this is His saying, the Exalted, which is more hidden than the verse with us:
[either] go forth in companies or go forth all together.
فانفروا ثبات أو انفروا جميعاًThe attendees: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, because the meaning is response after response and staying after staying. So the intended meaning is absolute multiplication, i.e., absolute number, and the intended meaning is not just twice. For this reason, the grammarians said it is annexed to the dual but is not a true dual, because the intended meaning is what? Plurality and a large number. So, why did it come with a yaa indicating that it is in the accusative case? They said because it is a verbal noun for a verb that is necessarily omitted and not combined with it. The estimation is "I alababtu ilababayn laka," meaning I stayed in my place for two instances for you. But an omission occurred in it: the omission of the hamza, and it became "lababayn," then the second ba was also omitted and it was said "labbaik." So the yaa here is a sign of inflection; it is in the accusative case by what? By a verb that is necessarily omitted. So it is an absolute object for a verb that is necessarily omitted. So, "Allahumma labbaik," what is the meaning of "Allahumma"? It means O Allah. But the yaa of the call was omitted and the mimm was substituted for it, and the mimm was placed at the end and was not in the place of the yaa. So two questions come to us: The first question is why was the yaa substituted with the mimm, and why was the substitute moved to the end and not in the place of the substituted? It is said regarding the first that the mimm is more indicative of plurality, and for this reason it is one of the signs of plurality, like "ila-him" for the plural. So it is as if the supplicant gathered his heart upon his Lord, the Exalted and Majestic, because he says "O Allah." And secondly, as for its being moved, it is for the sake of seeking good by beginning with the mention of the name of Allah, the Exalted. "Allahumma." And his saying "labbaik," is this from the chapter of verbal emphasis or semantic emphasis? The second. It is verbal; the word of the first did not change, but it has a new meaning. It is repeated and emphasized that he is responding to his Lord and staying in His obedience. "Labbaik, Allahumma labbaik, labbaik, la sharika laka labbaik..." The third is because you are responding to whom? You are responding to Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, and every time you respond to Him, you increase in faith in Him and longing for Him, so the emphasis is in accordance with wisdom. For this reason, you should feel, when you say "labbaik," that you are feeling the call of Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, to you and your response to Him, not just words that are said. "Labbaik, la sharika laka," does "la sharika laka" mean no partner for you in the talbiyah, or no partner for you in everything?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second, because it is more general. It means no partner for you in your dominion, no partner for you in your divinity, no partner for you in your names and attributes, and no partner for you in everything that is specific to you, including this response of mine. So I am sincere to you in it; I did not perform the Hajj for showing off or for reputation, nor for wealth, nor for anything else. I only performed the Hajj for you and responded to you only. And the grammatical analysis of his saying "la sharika laka" is that "la" is a negator of the genus, "sharika" is its name, and "laka" is its predicate. The negator of the genus is more general than the negator of absolute negation, because the negator of the genus negates anything of this, unlike if you say "la rajula fi al-bayt" (there is no man in the house) with the nominative case; this is not a negator of the genus, this is absolute negation. For this reason, it is permissible to say "la rajulun fi al-bayt bal rajulan" (there is no man in the house, but two men), but if you say "la rajula fi al-bayt bal rajulan" (there is no man in the house, but two men), the people who know grammar will object to you and say this is wrong. It is not correct to say "la rajula fi al-bayt bal rajulan"; you negate the genus first and then return to affirm it; it is not possible. So, in any case, "la sharika lahu" is a negator of the genus and the most general in negation.