Then he explained that with something greater than it, saying: "The Originator of the heavens and the earth". That is: their Creator without a previous example. How remarkable is the entirety of a matter that it is more appropriate that what is within it, its encompassing, and its establishment of the things established by it is from its Originator. So how can there be a likeness to Him? Because the child is extracted similar to what has been extracted from its essence, as mentioned by al-Harali.

"And when He decrees" means: He intends by saying "a matter" from either of them or from others. The decree is the execution of the predetermined. The predetermined is what has been defined from the absolute known, as stated by al-Harali.

"So He only says to it 'Be'" from being, which is the perfection of the beginning in its apparent and hidden aspects. "And it is". So He is exalted above the need for procreation and every need. The secret of the expression in the present tense will be mentioned, if Allah wills, in Al-Imran. Al-Harali said: Its form indicates the continuity of the existing in stages, times, and ages, extending its continuity in the created to the ultimate perfection. It has ended. They said: And the raising of "it is" is for the resumption, meaning: it is, or the conjunction with "He says" indicating the swiftness of creation in the manner of representation. And whoever said the first one prohibited the conjunction with "He says" due to the necessity of the 'fa' that the saying is with the creation, thus necessitating the precedence of the creation. Imam Abu Ali al-Farisi said in his book Al-Hujjah: That does not apply in the like of the second letter of Al-Imran, which is His saying: "Then He said to it 'Be' and it is" [Al-Imran: 59] because it is not appropriate for the two actions that are conjoined by the present and otherwise to differ. And the first of His saying:

And I pass by the miser who insults me... So I went on saying: It does not concern me.

That its meaning is: I passed by, and Abu Shama criticized it by saying that there should be a past tense in the verse like it. Abu Ali stated explicitly, and the truth is with him, that it is in its proper form; and the benefit of expressing it (p-130) in the present tense is to depict the situation and to guide that the estimation is: Be, and it was. Because whenever He decrees a thing, He says to it: Be, and it is. And He made the better part to be connected to 'Be' because although it is in the wording of a command, its meaning is the news, that is: it will be. He said that this is more consistent with the arrangement for the like of His saying: 'Then He said to it: Be, and it is' [Aal Imran: 59]. And this place is agreed upon to be in the nominative case, as is His saying, the Exalted, in Al-An'am: 'And the Day He says: Be, and it is' [Al-An'am: 73]. The disagreement is only in six places, of which Ibn Amer has specified four: this place, and His saying, the Exalted, in Aal Imran: 'When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: Be, and it is' [Aal Imran: 47], and in Maryam, it is the same, and in Ghafir: 'So when He decrees a matter, He only says to it: Be, and it is' [Ghafir: 68]. And Al-Kisai agreed with him in two letters in An-Nahl: 'Indeed, our saying to a thing when We intend it is: Be, and it is' [An-Nahl: 40], and in Ya-Sin: 'Indeed, His command when He intends a thing is only to say to it: Be, and it is' [Ya-Sin: 82]. So they made the accusative case (p-131) in these two as a conjunction to 'He says,' and in the first four, as a response to the command in His saying: 'Be,' considering the form of the wording, even if the meaning is not in the command. The estimation is: He says to it: it will be, that is: it will comply. Thus, the statement of those who weakened it by saying that the meaning is in the news and that the accusative case is not correct except if the command and its response are contradictory, this is not the case, but it must be that the thing is a condition for itself, because the estimation is: If it is, it is. Ibn Mujahid stated explicitly about the error of Ibn Amer and that this is not permissible in Arabic, as Imam Abu Shama narrated from him in his explanation of Ash-Shatibiya. So I pondered over that due to the certainty of the correctness of the reading of Ibn Amer for its transmission from those to whom the Quran was revealed. When I saw that he did not make it accusative except what is in the scope of 'When,' I understood that this was because of it due to what is in it of the meaning of the condition. So it would be like His saying, the Exalted, in Ash-Shura: 'And He knows those who argue about Our verses' [Ash-Shura: 35] with the accusative of 'He knows' in the reading of others than Nafi and Ibn Amer according to some interpretations. This is in line with the path of correctness without difficulty or improbability if the words are contemplated on 'When.' Al-Razi, who is the scholar Najm ad-Din Muhammad ibn Hasan Al-Istrabadi, said in the context of his explanation of the saying of the scholar Abu Amr Uthman ibn Al-Hajib in his Kafi: And among them is 'When,' which is for the future and contains the meaning of the condition. Therefore, the verb was chosen after it. The original in the use of 'When' is that it should be for a time from the future times, specified by the occurrence of an event in it that is certain. Then he said: And the word of the condition requires two sentences, the existence of the first one necessitating the occurrence of the second one. The first content is assumed to be necessary, and the second is its necessity. Then he said: And 'If' is designated for a condition that is assumed to exist in the future without certainty from the speaker either by its occurrence or non-occurrence, and that is due to the lack of certainty in the response neither by existence nor by non-existence, whether he doubts its occurrence as in our case, or does not doubt it, the occurrence is in His words, the Exalted. And he said: And the condition cannot be in a name except by including its meaning. Then he said: So we say: Since 'When' is for the matter that is certain to exist in the belief of the speaker in the future, it cannot be for the assumed existence, due to the contradiction of certainty and assumption in appearance. So there is no meaning of 'If' in the conditional sense, because the condition, as we have explained, is the assumed existence. However, since the situation often becomes clear to us in the matters that we expect, being certain of their occurrence against what we anticipate, they allowed the inclusion of 'When' with the meaning of 'If' as in 'Whenever' and other names of the jussive. So the speaker would say: If you come to me, you are honored - doubting the coming of the addressee, not favoring its existence over its non-existence, meaning whenever you come to me, whether; then he said: And when the meaning of the condition frequently entered into 'When' and exited from its original meaning of the specified time, its use was permissible even if it did not contain the meaning of 'If' in the conditional sense, and that is in the certain matters, the use of 'When' that includes the meaning of 'If,' and that is for the occurrence of two sentences after it in the manner of condition and response, even if they are not a condition and response. Then he said in the words concerning the 'Fa' in the jussive verbs, and 'An' may be omitted after the 'Fa' and 'Waw' occurring after the condition before the response, like: If you come to me, then you honor me - or if you honor me - I will come to you, or after the condition and response, like: If you come to me, I will come to you - or: and I will honor you - and that is for the similarity of the condition in the first and the response in the second being negated, as the response is conditioned by the existence of the condition, and the existence of the condition is assumed, so both are not truly described by existence. And upon this, His saying, the Exalted: 'If He wills, He will cause the wind to be still, and they will remain' [Ash-Shura: 33] is understood in the reading of the accusative; then he said: And they only shifted what came after the causal 'Fa' from the nominative to the accusative because they intended to specify its being causal, and the present tense raised without a clarifying indication for the situation and the future is apparent in the meaning of the situation, as previously mentioned in the chapter of the present tense. If they had kept it raised, it would have occurred to the mind that the 'Fa' was for the conjunction of a present tense sentence to the sentence that preceded the 'Fa,' meaning that it would have to be that the existence was ancient like the saying, so it was shifted to the accusative to indicate in appearance that it is not conjoined, as the present tense in the accusative with 'An' is singular, and before the mentioned 'Fa' is a sentence, and the present tense is clarified for the future suitable for the conditional as we mentioned in the accusative after 'Then,' so there were two things in it: the raising of the aspect of the 'Fa' for conjunction and the strengthening of its aspect for the response; thus, what comes after the 'Fa' is necessarily a subject with a missing predicate. Ended. So the estimation here, and Allah knows best: that its occurrence is a reality, not an illusion like magic and deceptions, so based on this, the reading of the accusative is more eloquent for its appearance in the shift from the situation to the future with (p-134) what it indicates of the speed of existence and that it is true. Then I saw Al-Burhan ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad Al-Safaqisi narrated in his grammar what I extracted from Ibn Al-Dhai' - meaning with the 'Dhad' with the dot and the 'Ayn' without the dot - and he is the master Abu Al-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al-Kutami, the teacher of Abu Hayyan, who said: What is its text: Ibn Al-Dhai' added in the accusative of 'Then it will be' a good aspect, which is its accusative in response to the condition, which is 'If,' and his intention was the causation from the response as I mentioned. Al-Safaqisi said: And there is a third aspect in it according to the method of the Kufis, which is its accusative in response to the restriction by 'Indeed,' because they permitted: Indeed, it is the strike of a lion, and its back will break.