When the relief of Yusuf drew near, the king of Egypt, 'Al-Rayan ibn Al-Walid', saw a strange dream that astonished him. He saw seven fat cows coming out of a dry river. And seven lean cows, and the lean ones swallowed the fat ones. And he saw seven green ears of grain that had ripened, and seven others that were dry and had matured. The dry ones twisted around the green ones until they overpowered them. He sought an interpretation but found no one among his people who could interpret it well. 'Fat' is the plural of 'fat' (samīn) and likewise for noble men and women. If you say: Is there a difference between using 'fat' as an attribute for the measure which is 'cows' and not for the distinguished which is 'seven', and to say: 'seven fat cows'? I say: If you use it as an attribute for cows, you intend to distinguish the seven by a type of cows, which are the fat ones among them, not by their kind. If you described the seven with it, you would intend to distinguish the seven by the kind of cows, not by a type among them, then you returned and described the distinguished by the kind with fatness. If you say: Why was it not said: 'seven lean' in the genitive? I say, the distinction is meant to clarify the kind, and 'lean' is a description that cannot clarify by itself. If you say: They may say: 'three horsemen and five companions'. I say: The horseman, companion, and rider, and similar terms: are descriptions that have taken the place of names, so they have the same ruling and what is not like them is permissible. Do you not see that you do not say: 'I have three large ones and four thick ones'? If you say: That is something that is complicated and what we are on is not complicated. Do you not see that he did not say 'cows seven lean', due to the knowledge that what is meant is the cows? I say: Leaving the original is not permissible when there is no need for what is not original, and the need has occurred with your saying 'seven lean' instead of what you suggested for the distinction by description. 'Lean' means emaciation that has no equal after it, and the reason for 'lean' being plural for 'lean cow' is that it is the opposite of 'fat', and it is their habit to carry the similar to the similar, and the opposite to the opposite. If you say: Is there evidence in the verse that the dry ears were seven like the green ones? I say: The speech is based on its focus on this number in the fat and lean cows and the green ears, so it must encompass the meaning of the other seven, and his saying 'and others that are dry' means 'and seven others'. If you say: Is it permissible to connect his saying 'and others that are dry' to 'green ears' making it genitive in position? I say: It leads to contradiction, which is that connecting it to 'green ears' necessitates that it enters into its ruling and be with it distinguishing the mentioned seven, and the word 'others' necessitates that they are not the seven. Its clarification is that you say: 'I have seven men standing and sitting', in the genitive, and it is correct because you distinguished the seven by men described as standing and sitting, while some of them are standing and some are sitting. If you said: 'He has seven men standing and others sitting', it leads to contradiction and is invalid. O assembly! It is as if he intended the individuals among the scholars and wise men. The 'lam' in his saying 'for the dream' may be for clarification, as in his saying 'and they were among the ascetics', or it may be included, because when the doer precedes its action, it is not in its strength to act on it like when it follows it, so it is supported by it as it is supported by the name of the doer, if you say: 'He is an interpreter of the dream', due to its descent from the action in strength. And it may be that 'for the dream' is the news of 'was', as you say: 'So-and-so was for this matter' if he was independent of it and capable of it. And 'you interpret' is another news. Or it is a state, and that 'you interpret' is to imply an action that requires the 'lam', as if it were said: If you are volunteering for the interpretation of the dream. The reality of 'I interpreted the dream' is that I mentioned its consequence and its final matter, as you say: 'I crossed the river', if you cut it until you reach its last width, which is its crossing. And likewise: 'I interpreted the dream' if I mentioned its outcome, which is its reference. And 'I interpreted the dream' - with the lightening - is what the affirmers relied on, and I saw them deny 'I interpreted' with the strengthening and the interpretation and the interpreter. And I stumbled upon a verse recited by Al-Mubarrad in the book 'Al-Kamil' from some Bedouins.

I saw a vision, then I interpreted it. And I was an interpreter of dreams. [Al-Mubarrad recited this in his book. The vision - with the 'alif': is the source of seeing in sleep, and it is less common to come with the 'taa'. The source of seeing in reality is the opposite. I interpreted the vision - with both the lightening and the doubling as here - means I mentioned its outcome and grasped its goal, as I did with its beginning, when I mentioned its end and reference. And dreams are the plural of dream, pronounced with a dhamma, which is what the sleeper sees. The term 'the interpreter' is an exaggeration of the one who interprets or the one who passes through. The 'lam' is added in the object to strengthen the action when it is weak due to delay or because it is a branch of the verb. Both matters have come together here, so the 'lam' was added.]}