And when all of this is in the form of a test, he will not gain insight so that his sincerity lasts. Whoever returns to blindness will not find his salvation. He said, clarifying by the accusative (p-323) to divert from conjunction to anything of the past actions due to the corruption of the meaning because they are in the realm of condition. Thus, knowledge also becomes conditional: ﴿and He knows those who argue﴾, meaning at the time of salvation by pardon. And since the position of greatness is in strong opposition to argumentation, he directed the saying to it and said: ﴿in Our signs﴾, meaning these which cannot be matched in their greatness nor compared in their majesty and honor, returning to what they were upon of polytheism and dispute in the fullness of power by denying resurrection. From the conjunction of diversion, it is known that its entry is singular in the interpretation of the source because the accusative in it is with the estimation that it may be a subject whose predicate is what the context indicates. The estimation here is: and His knowledge, glorified is He, of the arguers at this point is established, and the expression of it in the present tense is to convey the continuity of the connection of knowledge with every arguer whenever an argument occurs. The reading of Nafi and Ibn Amer with the raising indicates this, for the estimation is: and He knows - thus the raising here and the accusative are the same. Al-Radhi said in the explanation of the words of Ibn al-Hajib in the accusatives of the verb: and the conjunction - meaning as an accusative - has two conditions: the causal, and the second is that there be one of the eight things before it. The conjunctions of 'wa' occurring after the condition before the consequence are like: if you come to me, then honor me (p-324) or honor me, or after the condition and the consequence: if you come to me, then I will honor you, or I will honor you. This is due to the similarity of the condition in the first and the consequence in the second negation, as the consequence is conditional and its existence is by the existence of the condition, and the existence of the condition is assumed. Thus, both are not truly described by existence. This is how to understand His saying, exalted is He, ﴿and He knows those﴾ in the reading of the accusative. Then he said: Likewise, it is said in the verb in the accusative after the conjunction of diversion that when they intended in it the meaning of collectivity, they made the present tense accusative after it so that the diversion from the norms of the preceding speech is an indication from the very beginning that it is not for conjunction. Thus, it is either the conjunction of the state, and most of its occurrence is on the nominal, so the present tense after it is in the estimation of a subject with a missing predicate necessarily. The meaning of 'stand' and 'I stand': 'stand' and 'my standing is established': meaning in the state of my standing being established. And as for the meaning of 'with', which only enters upon the nominal, they intended here the companionship of the verb with the verb in the accusative after it. Thus, the meaning of 'stand' and 'I stand': 'stand with my standing' as they intended in the object accompanying the noun to the noun, so they made what follows the conjunction accusative. If we made the conjunction a conjunction for the source, it would be a catch from the verb before it: 'the salvation' meaning there was no standing from you and standing from me, there would be no textuality on the meaning of collectivity. The preferable in the intent of textuality in something is to make it in a way (p-325) that is apparent in what they intended textuality upon. And they conditioned the accusative of what follows the conjunction of causation to be that what precedes it is one of the mentioned things, namely command, prohibition, negation, inquiry, wish, offer, urging, and hope, because it is not the result of sources, so it would be like the condition which is not realized to occur. And what follows the conjunction would be like its consequence. Then they carried what precedes the conjunction of collectivity in the necessity of one of the mentioned things upon what precedes the conjunction of causation, which is more commonly used than the conjunction in such a place, meaning in the accusative of the present tense after it. This is due to the similarity of the conjunction to the conjunction in the original of conjunction, and in diverting what follows them from the norms of conjunction to intend causation in one of them and collectivity in the other, and due to the closeness of collectivity to the consequence which is necessary for causation. Then he said: Likewise, perhaps it does not divert after the conjunction of the state, it may enter upon the affirmative present tense as we mentioned in the chapter of the state, like: I stood and I am striking Zayd, meaning while I am striking.

And when the knowledge of the All-Powerful regarding disobedience necessitates the punishment of those who disobey Him, it is as if it were said: 'Surely, he has lost by doing that, so I wish I knew what their state will be?' He answered by saying: ﴿What do they have of refuge?﴾ meaning, there is no escape or way out from His punishment, not even a little. And if the infliction of punishment upon them seems delayed in your view, then His punishment, glorified and exalted is He, is indeed hidden, which is the gradual entrapment with blessings. This is only perceived by the possessors of hearts who are close to the Knower of the Unseen. And there is also that which is apparent, and it is possible that 'those' is the subject of 'He knows.' In that case, this sentence would be in the position of an accusative to fulfill the role of the object of knowledge.