His saying, glorified and exalted is He:

"So the response of his people was nothing but that they said, 'Kill him or burn him.' But Allah saved him from the fire. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who believe." "And he said, 'Indeed, you have taken besides Allah idols, by which you maintain affection among yourselves in the worldly life. Then on the Day of Resurrection, some of you will disbelieve in others and curse one another. And your refuge will be the Fire, and you will have no helpers.'"

The majority read: "response" in the accusative, while Al-Hasan read: "response" in the nominative, as did Salim Al-Aftas. And Allah, the Exalted, informed that when Ibrahim, peace be upon him, clarified the proofs and made clear the matter of religion, they reverted to dominance and abandoned the path of argumentation when they had none before. So they conspired to kill him and burn him in the fire, and they executed the order of burning him as has been elaborated in other places. And Allah, the Exalted, saved him from their fire and made it coolness and safety for him. Ka'b Al-Ahbar said: The fire did not burn anything except the rope with which they bound him. And He made that a sign and a lesson, and a proof of His oneness for whoever has opened his heart and made it easy for him to believe. That is: this type benefits from the sign, while the disbelievers are blind to it, even if it is in itself a sign for all.

Then Allah, the Exalted, mentioned that Ibrahim established for them that their taking of idols and statues was merely following some of them for others, and preserving their worldly affections and loves. And that on the Day of Resurrection, some of them will deny others and curse one another; because their affection was not based on piety. And "friends on that Day will be enemies to one another, except for the righteous." [Az-Zukhruf: 67]

And 'Asim read - in the narration of Al-Amash from Abu Bakr from him -: "affection" in the nominative and "among you" in the genitive. And Nafi', Ibn 'Amir, and 'Asim - in the narration of Abu Bakr - and Abu 'Amr - in the narration of Abu Zayd - read: "affection among you" with the tanween and accusative, and the accusative of "among". As for the reading of the nominative of "affection," its meaning is that "what" is in the sense of "which," and in His saying: "You have taken" there is a pronoun referring to "what," and this pronoun is the first object of "You have taken," and "idols" is the second object, and "affection" is the news of "Indeed" in the reading of those who gave it tanween, and in the reading of those who did not give it tanween. And it is permissible that "what" is sufficient, and there is no pronoun in His saying: "You have taken," and His saying: "idols" is the object of His saying: "You have taken," then it is limited to it, and it is estimated that the second is "deities" or something similar, as it is estimated in His saying, glorified and exalted is He: "Indeed, those who took the calf" [Al-A'raf: 152] meaning: "a deity" "will be struck by wrath" [Al-A'raf: 152]. And His saying: "affection" is the news of a beginning, its estimation is: "it is affection." In these interpretations, there is a metaphor and a broadness in naming the idols as affection, or that is based on the omission of a genitive.

As for those who read "affection" in the accusative, it is on the basis that "what" is sufficient, and that "You have taken" is free of the pronoun, and limiting it to the single object as previously mentioned. And the accusative of "affection" is on the object for its sake.

Whoever adds "love" to "between" in the two readings with the accusative and nominative, then it is permissible in that. He treats the adverb as if it were a noun. And whoever makes "between you" accusative in the two readings, the accusative and nominative in "love," it is also possible that it is treated as the case of adverbs, and it would be related to "love." Likewise, the saying "And he said, indeed you have taken" is also an adverb related to "love." It is a source that acts in two adverbs in terms of the separation of time and place. If there were only one of them, that would not be permissible. You say: "I saw Zayd yesterday in the market," and you do not say: "I saw Zayd yesterday the day before yesterday," unless one of the adverbs is part of the other. You say: "I saw Zayd yesterday in the evening." It is permissible that "between you" is an adjective of love. Here, there is an omitted estimate, its estimation being: "a stable love between you." In the adverb, there is a pronoun referring back to "love." When "stable" is omitted, the pronoun settles in the adverb itself. And his saying: "And he said, indeed you have taken" is an adverb in the position of the state of the pronoun that is in "between you" after the omission of "stable." This state is related to "love," and its relation to it is permissible because it has been described, since the meaning of the action is in it. And if it has been described, it does not prevent the meaning of the action from working except in the object. As for in the adverb and in the state, it works. Al-Makki said: It is permissible that "in life" is a stable description for "love," and it is estimated in it as "settled." And in it, there is a second pronoun referring back to "love." So the estimation - according to this - is a love between you that is settled in the worldly life.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

It is correct that his saying: "love" in the reading of whoever made it a second object with his saying: "you have taken" has a broad meaning, so contemplate it. In the Mushaf of Ubayy: "love between them" with the pronoun, and in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud: "Indeed, love is between you."