And the King said: (He was Ar-Rayyan, and he was an infidel. The usage of this title for him indicates what has been said: that it is permissible to refer to an infidel as a king, though some have prohibited it. Likewise, some have prohibited calling him a "commander" (amir), arguing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) wrote to Heraclius, "The Great One of the Romans," and did not write "The King of the Romans" or "Their Commander," for there is in that an implication of him being upon the truth. This [verse] is taken as a narrative of a name whose ruling and time have passed, and such a thing causes no harm).

He said to those around him: "I see"—meaning, I have seen. The preference for the present tense [in Arabic] is to narrate the past event as if it were present. "Seven fat cows": filled with flesh and fat, from the root s-m-n, like sami'a (hearing) [which forms] samanatan with a fatha on the sin, and saman like inaban. It is samin (fat) and samina. It is mentioned that samina and samina are gathered into the plural siman, like kiram (noble) is the plural of karim (noble) and karima. It is said: rijal kiram (noble men) and niswa kiram (noble women). "Eating them": meaning, their consumption. The shift to the present tense is for the purpose of bringing the scene to life, to induce wonder; the sentence acts as a state (hal) of the cows or an attribute of them. "Seven lean ones": meaning seven extremely emaciated cows, from their saying: "a thin spearhead" (nasl a'jaf), meaning narrow. It is the plural of ajfa' in a way that deviates from analogy (qiyas), for the analogy would be ujf, like hamra' (red, fem.) and humr (red, pl.), since fa'la' and af'al do not typically pluralize into fi'al. However, they based it upon siman—and they do sometimes build one thing upon its opposite, such as their saying adwa (female foe) with a ta because of sadiqa (female friend). Fa'ul in the sense of fa'il (active participle) does not take the ta. He ran siman (fat) upon the distinguished object, so it was inflected as an adjective for it, rather than being in the accusative case as an attribute of the distinguished number, because the description of the discriminator (tamiz) is a description of it in meaning.

They have mentioned that if the discriminator is described, the discrimination is by type, and if the distinguished object is described, the discrimination is by genus. There is no doubt that the former is better and more eloquent, for the type includes the genus; thus, it is greater in removing the ambiguity intended by the discrimination. For this reason, what is in the Noble Order was preferred over its alternative. He did not say: "Seven lean cows" (sab'i 'ujaf), by genitive construction, making it an attribute of the implicit discriminator following the analogy of what preceded it, because the discriminator is for clarifying the genus and reality, and the attribute does not indicate that, but rather something that possesses a state and quality. Hence, they mentioned that the discriminator is [usually] a concrete noun of genus, not a derivative attribute, in eloquent speech. You say: "I have thirty Qurayshi [men]," and you do not say "Qurayshian" (qurashiyyin) in the genitive. As for your saying: "three horsemen" (fursan) and "five riders" (rukban), that is because fāris and rākib flow like [concrete] nouns, as they are mostly used without a described noun.

The author of Al-Fara'id objected, stating that the root of the number is the discriminator through genitive construction; therefore, when the seven are described as "lean" ('ujaf), it is necessary to assume the genitive. Both the description and the assumption of the genitive are contrary to the root. However, if it were in the genitive, the attribute would take the place of the described noun. So, our saying "seven lean ones" is equivalent to our saying "seven cows [that are] lean." Thus, the required discrimination through the genitive is achieved through the genitive to the attribute because it stands in the place of the described noun. Just as it is permissible to say "seven lean cows," it is permissible to say "seven lean ones." The reason it was not in the genitive is that it stands in the place of the "cows," and they are described as "lean"; thus, it would be of the category of genitive construction of the described noun to the attribute, which is not permissible except through interpretation.

Al-Qutb rebutted this, saying: Granted that the root of the number is discrimination by genitive, but since the mention of "seven fat cows" preceded it, it became clear that the "seven lean ones" are cows. Thus, this "seven" is already distinguished by what preceded, and the discrimination by genitive has already been attained. If it were genitively connected to "lean ones," then "lean ones" would be standing in the place of "cows" in the discrimination, making the discrimination [occur] by an attribute, which is contrary to the root. As for the claim that the "seven" stands in the place of the "cows," that only happens if it is described by "lean ones"; but if it is genitively connected, then "lean ones" is standing in the place of the "cows," and it does not necessitate the genitive construction of the described noun to the attribute. (This requires reflection).

The scholar Al-Tayyibi mentioned in this context that one could say: If the distinguished object is described, and then the ambiguity and vagueness of the number are removed, it signals that both are intended in the mention, unlike when it is discriminated and then described. In fact, the description is more important, because the distinguished object was only brought in for the sake of the description. Hence, the discrimination was omitted in the three parallel instances, and the context warrants that, because the intent is to state the trial of hardship after ease; the statement of the quantity by number is primary, and the quality by the cows is secondary—so understand this. From this, one learns the reason for the departure from the phrasing "I see seven lean cows eating seven fat ones"—the preferred one in the Noble Order.

It is said: The expression [in the Quranic order] is because it is the first thing he saw—the fat ones. It has been narrated that he saw seven fat cows coming out of a dried river, and then seven lean cows came out after them and devoured the fat ones, yet nothing of that [devouring] was evident upon them.

"And seven green ears of corn": their grain having solidified and become green. Meaning: and seven others "withered": which have reached maturity and intertwined with the green ones until they overcame them, and nothing of their greenness remained, according to what is narrated. Perhaps the absence of mention of the number for [the withered ears] is to suffice with what was mentioned of the state of the cows.

It is not permissible to coordinate "others" (ukhar) to "ears" (sunbulat) because coordination to the discriminator requires that the coordinated and the coordinator are an explanation of the counted entity, whether one says it is by [the principle of] insihab (carrying over) or by repeating the operator; for the meaning, according to both views, does not differ—the difference is only in the verbal estimation. In that case, a contradiction arises in the verse, because coordination requires that the ears—their green ones and their dry ones—be seven, while the word "others" (ukhar) requires them to be [a group] other than the seven. This is because their contrast in description—namely, greenness and dryness—is explicitly stated, and their participation in being "ears" is also stated; therefore, the requirement of the word "others" is their divergence in number. Thus, a contradiction is necessitated. On this basis, it is correct to say: "I have seven men, standing and sitting," in the genitive, because you have distinguished seven men who are described as standing and sitting, meaning some are this and some are that. But it is not correct to say "seven men [who are] standing and others [who are] sitting," due to what you have learned. The verse and the example in this discussion are on the same footing, as the words of Al-Kashshaf require. The author of Al-Fara'id looked into this and said: The correct view is that coordination is in the status of repeating the operator, not insihab. If "others" were coordinated to "men standing," the "seven" would be repeated in the coordinated part—meaning "and seven others, meaning other men, sitting"—and the meaning would be corrupted, because the assumption is that the men are [only] seven. As for the verse, if it were repeated therein, and it were said: "and seven others"—meaning and seven other ears—it would be consistent, because the green ones are seven and the withered ones are seven. Indeed, if that were interpreted by the weaker view, which is insihab, it would lead to the seven mentioned being distinguished by green ears and other withered ears, which is corrupt, as the intent is that each of them is seven, not that [the total] is seven. Thus, the example and the verse are not on the same footing; for it [the example] would be corrupted by repeating the operator, and it would be correct by insihab, while the verse is the opposite. He then built upon what he claimed, that the correct view is that of repetition, to allow for coordination.

He claimed that the best [approach] is for the coordination to be on "green" (khudr), not on "withered" (yabisat), so that it points to another described noun—which is "ears"—without assuming its described noun due to the context. It is not hidden that the discussion is only upon the assumption that the discriminator of the seven is what you have learned, and upon that, the contradiction is necessary. It cannot be built upon the assumption that they are seven or fourteen; thus, it is correct in the verse and incorrect in the example, for that is a fallacy. From this, it appears that neither repetition nor insihab has any place in this assumption. Furthermore, the chosen view is that of insihab, as Sheikh Ibn al-Hajib explicitly stated and verified in more than one place. As for the inference from the verse for insihab [instead of] estimation—otherwise, the word "others" would be a prolixity from which the miraculous speech of Allah is shielded—this is unsound according to what is in Al-Kashf, because the one who holds to estimation claims the obviousness of independence, and likewise, the one who holds to insihab claims the obviousness of the correspondent, as the masters of Arabic grammar have stated. Thus, the emphasis with "others" is not for the desire of tautology as a prolixity, but rather an itnab (rhetorical lengthening) that occurs in its proper place.

"O you chiefs": an address to the nobles among whom knowledge is expected. It is narrated that he gathered the magicians, the soothsayers, and the dream interpreters, and said to them: "O you chiefs."

"Explain to me my vision": this [refers to] the vision, "expound it and clarify its judgment and the consequence to which it leads." It is also said: It is an address to his attendees and his councilors, and the expression "expound" (ifta) is used instead of "interpretation" (ta'bir) to honor them and amplify the importance of his vision. "If you are able to interpret visions":

Meaning: "If you possess the knowledge of the ta'bir (interpretation) of the genus of visions as a continuous knowledge—which is the transition from the image witnessed in the sleep to what it is an image and example of, regarding horizon-related and soul-related matters occurring in the outside world—from the root 'ubur (crossing), which is passing over. You say: "I crossed ('abartu) the river" if you traversed it and passed over it. Similarly, "I interpreted it" (awwaltuha)—meaning I mentioned what it leads to. 'Abartu al-ru'ya with the light [form] is more powerful and better known to the linguists than 'abbartu with the doubled [form] ta'bir, such that some have denied the doubled form. However, what Al-Mubarrad cited in Al-Kamil for one of the Bedouins refutes him: "I saw a vision, then I interpreted ('abartu) it / and I was, for dreams, an interpreter ('abbar)." The combination of the past and the future is to indicate continuity, as was indicated. As for the lam [in lil-ru'ya], it is said to be related to an omitted [verb], and the intent of that is the explanation; as if, when it was said "you interpret," it was asked: "For what thing?" and it was said: "For the vision." So it is for explanation, like in the phrase "a greeting (suqya) to him," except that placing the explanation before the thing being explained is not without difficulty. It is also said—and Abu Hayyan chose this—that it is for strengthening the mentioned verb, because it was weakened by the delay. It is called the "strengthening lam," and it enters, in eloquent speech, upon the object if it precedes its operator absolutely, and upon the object of other than the verb if it is delayed, like "Zayd is a striker (darib) to Amr." Whether it is redundant or not is a matter of dispute. It is also said that it was brought to incorporate the transitive verb with the meaning of an intransitive verb that is made transitive by the lam; meaning: "If you volunteer for its interpretation." It is also permitted that "for the vision" (lil-ru'ya) is the predicate of kana (to be), as you say: "So-and-so is for this matter," if he is prepared for it and capable of it; and the sentence "you interpret" is another predicate or a state. It is not hidden what is in that of artificiality, and likewise in what preceded it. Abu Ja'far read it with idgham (assimilation) in "vision" (ru'ya) and its likes after turning the hamza into a waw and then turning the waw into a ya' due to it being preceded by a quiescent [letter]. They noted the irregularity of this, because the waw is a non-obligatory replacement.