We do not understand much of what you say because they do not direct their minds to it, out of desire for it and aversion to it, as His saying: "And We placed coverings upon their hearts so they do not understand it." Or they understood it but did not accept it, as if they did not understand it. They said this in a manner of belittling it, just as a man says to his companion if he does not care for his words: "I do not know what you are saying." Or they made his words seem like nonsense and confusion, which does not benefit them much. And how could his words not benefit them when he is the orator of the prophets? It is said that he was weak in speech among us, lacking strength and honor among us. [Mawhūd said: "The meaning of their saying 'weak' is: you have no strength or honor among us..." Ahmad said: "This is one of the merits indicating that he was skilled in the art of eloquence, and Allah is the Helper."] So you cannot resist us if we intend you harm. And from al-Hasan: 'weak and humiliated.' And it is said 'weak and blind.' And a donkey is called 'blind': weak, just as a blind person is called so, and it is not correct, for 'among us' rejects it.

Do you not see that if it were said: 'We see you among us blind,' it would not be a statement, because the blind is blind among them and among others. Therefore, they diminished his people by making them a small group. And a small group is from three to ten. It is said: up to seven.

They only said: 'And were it not for them,' out of respect for them and regard for them, because they were upon their religion, not out of fear of their might and strength. 'We would have stoned you; we would have killed you in the worst way, and you are not honored over us,' meaning you are not esteemed or respected by us, so that we honor you from killing and raise you above stoning. Rather, your group is honored over us, because they are from the people of our religion; they did not choose you over us nor follow you instead of us. The negation in his statement indicates that the speech is directed at the subject and not at the action, as if it were said: 'And you are not honored over us,' but rather your group is the honored ones over us. Therefore, in response to them, he said: 'Is my group more honored to you than Allah?' And if it were said: 'And you are not honored over us,' this response would not be valid.

If you say: 'The speech is directed at him and his group, and they are the honored ones over him,' how is his saying 'Is my group more honored to you than Allah?' correct? I say: Their belittling of him - he being the Prophet of Allah - is belittling of Allah. So when his group was honored over him, they considered his group more honored than Allah. Do you not see His saying: 'Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah,' and you took him as a thing cast behind your back, neglecting him and making him like something discarded behind your back, not caring for him? The term 'behind' refers to the back, and the 'kassar' is from the changes of attribution.

An example of this is their saying in relation to yesterday: 'Yesterday is encompassing of what you do, for nothing of it is hidden from Him.' 'Upon your status' does not escape the meaning of place; it is said: place and status, station and standing. Or it could be a source from 'makan' (place), so it is 'makin.' The meaning is: act firmly upon your direction which you are upon of polytheism and enmity towards me. Or act being established in your enmity, able to endure it. 'Indeed, I am acting according to what Allah gives me of victory and support.' And 'whoever comes to him' may be interrogative, suspended from the action of knowledge about his action in it, as if it were said: 'You will know who among us will come to him with a punishment that humiliates him, and who among us is the liar.' And it may be relative, having acted in it, as if it were said: 'You will know the wretched one who comes to him with a punishment that humiliates him, and who is the liar.'

If you say: What is the difference between including the letter 'fa' and omitting it in 'sawfa ta'lamoon'? I say: Including the 'fa' connects the apparent with a letter designated for connection, while omitting it connects the hidden with an implied continuation that is an answer to a presumed question, as if they said: So what will happen if we act according to our position and you act? He said: You will know. Thus, it is connected at times with 'fa' and at other times with an implied continuation, for the sake of eloquence, as is the custom of the eloquent among the Arabs. The stronger and more eloquent of the two connections is the implied continuation, which is a door of the science of rhetoric, whose merits are abundant. 'And wait for the outcome, and what I say to you is that I am with you a watcher,' meaning a watcher. The watcher means the observer, from 'raqaba,' like 'dariba' and 'sarima' meaning 'striking' and 'cutting.' Or it means the observer, like 'ashir' and 'nadim.' Or it means the one who is awaited, like 'faqir' and 'rafi' meaning 'needy' and 'elevated.' If you say: They mentioned their action according to their position. [Mawlid said: 'If you say they mentioned their action according to their position... etc.' Ahmad said: And it is apparent - and Allah knows best - that both sayings are for them. The first, which is His saying: 'Whoever comes to him, a punishment that humiliates him,' implies mentioning their crime for which they will be punished, which is lying. It is a case of attributing a description to a description while the described is one, as you would say to someone you threaten: You will know who is humiliated and who is punished. The addressee is meant in both sayings. If it is established that both sayings are directed to them, this does not lack a sign of mentioning his consequence, for if one of the two groups is in error, the other is certainly correct. Thus, mentioning one of the consequences explicitly implies the mention of the other indirectly.

And the allusion, as you have learned in many of its instances, is more eloquent and impactful than the explicit statement. This is one of them. What indicates that both sayings belong to him and that the outcome of Shu'ayb's matter was not mentioned is that it is sufficient to mention their outcome, as we have explained in the verse at the beginning of this surah, which is His saying, 'If you mock us, then we will mock you as you mock. Soon you will know who will come to him a punishment that will disgrace him and who will be afflicted by a lasting punishment.' Do you not see how he sufficed with that instead of saying: 'And who is contrary to that'? Likewise, His saying in Surah Al-An'am: 'Say, O my people, work according to your position; indeed, I am working. Soon you will know who will have the outcome of the abode.' There he also mentioned one of the two outcomes, because the intended outcome here is the outcome of goodness. Whenever it is mentioned, it only means that, as in His saying, 'And the outcome is for the righteous,' and he sufficed with not mentioning its opposite. And Allah knows best. Reflect on this section, for it is a treasure for those who aim to arrange the pearls of the Noble Book and connect them to one another. And Allah is the guide to the truth.