And when he clarified what he obligated upon his pure self, it became as if it was necessary for him to occur. Sometimes he might have misled himself into thinking that something is obligatory upon him. He followed that with what negates it and indicates that he has the ultimate authority over it. So nothing he desires is difficult for him. He said: "And indeed, for us" meaning, O you who deny, specifically for us. He preceded what is of utmost concern due to their denial, not for the separation, as it provides an example to say: for the immediate and the other. He said: "for the Hereafter and the first". So whoever abandons what we have made clear to him from the path of guidance does not exit from being for us and harms only himself. For us is the complete authority, by what we establish of the means that bring the matter closer, indeed. Then by what we establish of the barriers that necessitate its utmost distance. We give to whom we will what we will and we prevent from whom we will what we will. Whoever seeks something from either of them without us, then his opinion is in vain and his effort is in vain. The precedence is not for the sake of the separation. For the invalidity of this has been established, and it is not permissible to believe in it in any context, such as the end of Surah At-Tawbah. There is no difference between believing that there is something measured with the intention of measurement only for it to be poetry, and believing that there is something that has been advanced or delayed for the sake of the separation only for it to be rhymed prose. Although if this were only for the sake of the separation, it would have been possible to say: for the first - or for the first - and the other, for example.