The answer is that the latter is intended, for the meaning is response after response, and remaining after remaining. What is meant, then, is abundance in general—that is, a repeated number—not merely twice. For this reason, grammarians said that it resembles the dual form but is not truly dual, because it is intended to convey plurality and a large number.

Why, then, does it appear with the ending yā’, which indicates that it is in the accusative case?

They said: Because it is a verbal noun governed by an obligatorily omitted verb, which is not used together with it. The underlying wording is: “I have remained, remaining twice, for You.”

“I have remained”—that is, “I stayed in a place, remaining twice.” But the hamzah was omitted from it, so it became “remaining twice” after the hamzah had been dropped. Then it was said that the second bā’ is also omitted, and thus we say, “labbayk”; the yā’ is the inflectional ending.

His saying, “Allahumma,” means, “O Allah.” However, the vocative particle yā’ was omitted and the mīm was substituted for it. The mīm was placed at the end rather than in the position of the yā’, out of reverence for beginning with the mention of Allah’s name, Exalted is He. The mīm was used as a substitute because it more strongly indicates gathering, and for this reason it is among the markers of the plural. It is as though the supplicant has gathered his heart upon his Lord, for he says, “O Allah.”

The second occurrence of “labbayk” is a form of verbal and meaningful emphasis. It is verbal emphasis because its wording has not changed from the first occurrence, yet it carries a renewed meaning. Thus, he repeats it and affirms that he is responding to his Lord and remaining steadfast in His obedience: “Here I am, O Allah, here I am. Here I am; You have no partner; here I am.” For you are responding to Allah, Exalted is He, and each time you respond to Him, you increase in faith in Him and longing for Him. Thus, repetition is required by wisdom, and for this reason—