Praise and commendation are brothers. It is the expression and call for the beautiful of blessings and others. You say: I praised the man for his generosity, and I praised him for his lineage and bravery.

As for gratitude, it is specifically for the blessing. It is with the heart, tongue, and limbs. It is said:

"The blessings have benefited you from me in three ways... my hand, my tongue, and my concealed conscience."

"And my gratitude was not sufficient for your bounty... but I tried in my effort to honor you."

The blessings have benefited you from me in three ways... my hand, my tongue, and my concealed conscience.

This means that my glorification of you was not sufficient for the right of your gift, but I intended through my effort in glorifying you a purpose. He clarified this by saying: Your blessings upon me are manifested through my hand, my tongue, and my heart. They are, along with their actions, for you. The noble master said: This is a moral testimony that gratitude is attributed to the actions of the three resources. It indicates that he made them a reward for the blessing. Everything that is a reward for the blessing, by common understanding, is called gratitude in language. It is as if he said: Your blessings have increased upon me, so it is obligatory to fulfill the types of gratitude for you. He emphasized this until he made their resources a possession for them. It was said: Blessings is the plural of blessing, but the apparent meaning of the hand is that it refers to its meaning. The narration of the first verse after the second is better positioned and more evident as a testimony.

Gratitude by the tongue alone is one of the branches of gratitude. From it is his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: "Praise is the head of gratitude; no servant has truly thanked Allah who has not praised Him." This was narrated by Abdul Razzaq from Ma'mar from Qatadah from Abdullah ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with them, with a raised chain, and there is a break in it. And from Ibn Abbas similarly, narrated by Al-Baghawi in the Tafsir of (Subhan) and it contains Nasr ibn Hamad, who is weak.

He made it the head of gratitude because mentioning the blessing by the tongue and praising its giver is more widespread and indicative of its status than belief and the manners of the limbs, due to the obscurity of the heart's action and the potentiality in the actions of the limbs. Unlike the action of the tongue, which articulates everything hidden and clarifies every ambiguous matter.

Praise is the opposite of blame, and gratitude is the opposite of ingratitude. The elevation of praise is by beginning, and its news is the circumstance that is for Allah, and its origin is the accusative case. Some of them read it by implying its action as it is from the sources that the Arabs make accusative with implied actions in the meaning of reporting, like their saying: Thank you, and ingratitude, and amazement, and what is similar to that. Among them is: Glorified are You, and I seek refuge with Allah. They place them in the position of their actions and substitute them for them. Therefore, they do not use them with them and consider their use as a nullified law. The shift from the accusative to the nominative at the beginning indicates the stability and permanence of the meaning. From it is His saying, the Exalted: (They said, Peace. He said, Peace.) The second peace is raised to indicate that Ibrahim, peace be upon him, greeted them with a greeting better than their greeting because the elevation indicates the meaning of the stability of peace for them without its renewal and occurrence. The meaning is: We praise Allah with praise. Therefore, it was said:

"You alone we worship, and You alone we ask for help," because it is a clarification of their praise for Him, as if it were said: How do you praise? It was said: You alone we worship.

What is the meaning of the definition in it? I said: It is similar to the definition in 'He sent her the struggle.' [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And the definition of praise is similar to the definition in 'He sent her the struggle,' and it is the definition of the genus, and its meaning is as follows." Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The definition of repetition with the definite article is either specific or generic. The specific may refer to a particular individual from the genus by which it is distinguished from other individuals, like the definition in 'And Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger.' Or it may refer to the essence by which it is distinguished from other essences, like the definition in 'I ate the bread, and I drank the water.' The generic is that which includes the individuals, like: 'The man is better than the woman.' Neither type of the specific necessitates its comprehensiveness, but only the generic does. Al-Zamakhshari made the definition of praise from the second type of the specific, although he expressed it as the definition of the genus due to not adhering to the terminology of the principles of jurisprudence. Others besides Al-Zamakhshari considered it to be for the genus, thus concluding its implication for all types of praise, which is not far off."] It is the definition of the genus, and its meaning is an indication of what everyone knows, that praise is what it is, and the struggle is what it is, among the kinds of actions. The comprehensiveness that many people imagine is an illusion, and they are among them. Al-Hasan Al-Basri read: 'Praise be to Allah' with a kasra on the dal due to following the lam. Ibrahim ibn Abi Abla read: 'Praise be to Allah' with a damma on the lam due to following the dal. What allowed them to do that - and following only occurs in a single word, as they say: 'the slope of the mountain' and 'the changer' - is that the two words are treated as one word due to their frequent usage together. The preferable of the two readings is that of Ibrahim, as he made the structural movement dependent on the grammatical one, which is stronger, unlike the reading of Al-Hasan.

The Lord: the owner. From it is the saying of Safwan to Abu Sufyan: 'It is more beloved to me that a man from Quraysh raises me than that a man from Hawazin raises me.' [This is a stopped narration. Ibn Ishaq narrated in Al-Maghazi: 'Aasim ibn Umar ibn Qatada narrated to me from Abdul Rahman ibn Jaber ibn Abdullah from his father in the story of Hunayn. In it is the saying of Safwan. And through him, Ibn Hibban narrated it in his Sahih. Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Dala'il. And it was narrated by Juwayriya from Malik from Al-Zuhri as a disconnected narration. And Al-Daraqutni narrated it in Al-Ghara'ib.

(Note) It occurred that Safwan said this to Abu Sufyan. What is in the disconnected narration of Al-Zuhri is that he said it to his nephew. What is in Al-Maghazi is that he said it to his maternal brother Kulthum. And Abu Ya'la narrated it through Ibn Ishaq.] You say: his lord raises him, so he is a lord, just as you say: he sleeps on him, so he is a sleeper.

It is permissible for it to be a description from the source for emphasis, just as it is described by justice. They did not use the term lord except for Allah alone, and for others it is restricted by addition, like their saying: the lord of the house, and the lord of the she-camel, and His saying: 'Return to your Lord,' 'Indeed, He is my Lord who has made my abode good.' Zayd ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with them both, read: 'Lord of the worlds' in the accusative as praise, and it was said due to what is implied by 'Praise be to Allah,' as if it were said: 'We praise Allah, the Lord of the worlds.'

The 'Alim: a name for those with knowledge from the angels and the two weighty ones. [[Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The 'Alim is a name for those with knowledge from the angels ... etc." Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: His reasoning for the plural indicating its encompassing all kinds under it is questionable, for 'Alim' as he established is a generic name defined by the definite article, thus the 'Alim - which is singular - is more indicative of encompassing than the plural. Imam al-Haramayn, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Dates are more likely to encompass the genus than dates (tamur) because dates extend to the genus not by a verbal form, while dates (tamurat) return to the imagination of perception, then the encompassing after it is by the plural, and in the plural there is confusion. This concludes his words. The clarification in this and in all that is gathered from the names of the genera and then defined by the definition of the genus is that it conveys two matters: one is that this genus has different types under it, and the other is that it encompasses all that is under it. However, what indicates the difference of types is the plural, and what indicates the encompassing of all of them is the definition. Do you not see that if it is gathered without definition, it indicates the difference of types, then if it is defined, it conveys an encompassing not contingent upon the plural form? For this is the ruling of its singular form when defined. Therefore, al-Zamakhshari's statement that "the benefit of the plural 'Alimin is the encompassing" is refuted by the establishment of this benefit even if it is not pluralized. And Imam al-Haramayn's statement that "the plural supports the indication of encompassing due to what we imagine from returning to perception" is also refuted because the benefit of the plural is the indication of the difference of types, and their difference does not contradict their encompassing by the singular form established by the definition of the genus. If he meant that the plural suggests an indication of types that are familiar, this imagination is aided by the singular. Thus, the 'Alim is pluralized to indicate the difference of the types included under it from the jinn, humans, and angels, and it is defined to indicate the general lordship of Allah, the Exalted, in all its types. The clarification of this report is: If we assume a genus that has nothing under it but equal individuals, which is what is called by non-grammarians the lowest type, it would not be permissible to pluralize this in any case, neither defined nor undefined. With this benefit, the statement of Imam al-Haramayn that "dates are a plural in terms of wording" is rejected as there is no meaning under it for the plural in the manner of camels and she-camels, and beautiful. As for al-Zamakhshari's reasoning for its pluralization with the waw and noon by indicating the attribute of knowledge, it is valid if the matter is based on it not encompassing except the possessors of knowledge. As for the view that it is a name for every existent other than Allah, it requires further consideration in favoring the rational in the plural over the non-rational.]] And it is said: Everything known by the Creator from bodies and attributes. If you say: Why is it pluralized? I say: To include every genus by which it is named. If you say: It is a name and not an attribute, and only rational attributes or those similar to them are pluralized with the waw and noon. I say: This is permissible due to the meaning of descriptiveness in it, which is the indication of the meaning of knowledge.