Response to a Linguistic Objection

Why do the words “abnāʾ” (sons), “nisāʾ” (women) and “anfus” (souls) appear in plural form, when in reality the plural was not actualized? In response, one cannot say that in logic, plural applies to two or more instances, because in logic “singularity” and “plurality” are discussed, and plurality is achieved with two. Moreover, this only resolves the issue of “abnāʾ” but not “nisāʾ” and “anfus.”

Such objections can be found in Ibn Taymiyya’s Minhāj al-Sunna and in al-Manār.(722)

In response to the aforementioned objection, one can say that each of the two terms “nisāʾanā” (our women) and “anfusanā” (ourselves), whether the first which is a quasi-plural and collective noun, or the second which is a plural, is used in its conceptual sense rather than its referential sense. Of course, when used, the familiar concept sometimes has one, two, or more instances. For example, regarding a man who had performed ẓihār with his wife, this verse was revealed: “As for those of you who repudiate their wives by ẓihār…”(723) In this verse, the plural form is used, even though there was only one person who performed ẓihār. Similarly, in “Your guardian is only Allah, His Messenger, and the faithful who maintain the prayer and give the zakat while bowing down”,(724) and also like the people of “Ḥijr” or the tribe of “Thamūd,” each of whom had only one prophet, and their rejection was only in relation to…

Fakhr Rāzī says that when the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) came to the scene of mubāhala (mutual imprecation), he was wearing a woolen cloak (kisāʾ) and carrying Ḥusayn (a.s.), while holding Ḥasan’s (a.s.) hand, and Fāṭima (a.s.) was walking behind the Prophet, and ʿAlī (a.s.) was walking behind Fāṭima. The Messenger of God (s.a.w.) said: “When I make the prayer, say ‘amen.’”

After describing the events of the mubāhala, he writes:

It is narrated that when he (a.s.) came out wearing the black cloak (mirṭ), Ḥasan (a.s.) came and he brought him in, then Ḥusayn (a.s.) came and he brought him in, then Fāṭima (a.s.), then ʿAlī (a.s.), then he said: “Indeed God desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification.”(725) Know that this narration is considered authentic by consensus among the scholars of exegesis and hadith.(726)

The words of Fakhr Rāzī and others also testify that “sons” (abnāʾ), although plural, was applied only to Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (a.s.), as there were no other instances of “sons” (abnāʾ) except them. For fulfilling “women” (nisāʾ), only Fāṭima (a.s.) came, as there was no other instance except her.(727) And “ourselves” (anfusanā) also had only one instance, and that was ʿAlī (a.s.), otherwise the Messenger (s.a.w.) would have called others for the mubāhala as well, just as “our sons” (abnāʾanā) had two instances and he (s.a.w.) did not suffice with just one of them. Moreover, since each of the two groups had to bring all of their “sons, women, and souls” so that the lineage of the liar and corrupt would be uprooted, if even one person from either group did not come to the scene, God’s command would not have been fulfilled and would not have sufficed.

The conclusion is that a plural word like “sons” (abnāʾ) can be fulfilled even if it has no more than two instances in reality. Therefore, the words “sons” (abnāʾ), “women” (nisāʾ), and “souls” (anfus) are each used in their conceptual sense, even if in practice each had no more than one or two instances.