When the matter was decided, when the affair was cut off and completed, which is the reckoning, and the two groups were judged, with one entering Paradise and the other entering Hell. It is narrated that the devil stands at that time as a speaker. Mahmoud said: "It is narrated that the devil stands at that time as a speaker..." Ahmad said: He interpreted the words of the disbelievers in the first verse as a denial of false attribution, because it does not align with his belief. He cited as evidence that lying at that time is neither impossible nor difficult by the saying of Allah: "And they swear to him as they swear to you." Then, when he thought that the devil's words aligned with his belief, he strived to argue for their correctness and validation, even if the speaker was the devil. All of this is from following desires wherever they lead and whatever path they take. We, the people of the Sunnah, who are labeled by him as the 'compellers', say: Indeed, Allah, the Exalted, has presented these words without rejecting them or deeming the devil to be wrong, just as He recounted the words of the disbelievers in the first verse. We believe that blame is directed at the one who is accountable, while Allah, the Exalted, is glorified above that. His decisive proof and His just decree are that we acknowledge what Allah, the Exalted, has created for the servant in terms of the choice he finds within himself when the two ends of voluntary actions pull at him necessarily. By this, the proof stands for him against his creation. Even if we were to deny the effect of creation's ability in the action, there is no contradiction then between the belief of the Sunnah and directing blame to the accountable one. And Allah is the Grantor of success. In the case of the wretched among the jinn and mankind, he says: "Indeed, Allah promised you the promise of truth," which is resurrection and recompense for deeds, "and He fulfilled for you what He promised you, and I promised you the opposite of that, so I deceived you. And I had no authority over you, no control or coercion, to compel you to disbelief and sins and to force you into them, except that I called you, except my calling you to misguidance through my whispering and beautifying it for you. And calling is not of the same kind as authority, but it is like saying: 'You did not greet them except with a strike.' So do not blame me, but blame yourselves, for you were deceived by me and obeyed me when I called you, and you did not obey your Lord when He called you. This is evidence that a person is the one who chooses misery or happiness and obtains it for himself. The saying "chooses misery or happiness and obtains it for himself" is the doctrine of the Mu'tazilah, and the term "the compellers" refers to the people of the Sunnah. Their doctrine is that Allah is the creator of the causes of happiness and the causes of misery, but the servant has a role in them. From this, blame is directed at him, contrary to the Mu'tazilah in their claim that the servant is the creator of them and is the one who obtains them for himself. The clarification of this is in the science of monotheism. And there is nothing from Allah except the enabling, and nothing from the devil except the beautifying. If the matter were as the compellers claim, he would have said: 'So do not blame me nor yourselves, for Allah has decreed disbelief upon you and compelled you to it.' If you say: 'The devil's statement is false and cannot be relied upon,' I say: If this statement from him were false, Allah would have clarified its falsehood and made His denial apparent, especially since there is no benefit for him in speaking falsehood at that moment. Do you not see His saying: "Indeed, Allah promised you the promise of truth and I promised you, so I deceived you," how He brought forth the truth and honesty in it? And in His saying: "And I had no authority over you," it is similar to the saying of Allah: "Indeed, My servants, you have no authority over them except for those who follow you among the deviators." "I am not your helper, nor are you my helpers; none of us can save each other from the punishment of Allah, nor can he help him." And 'al-‘israakh' means 'helping.' And it was recited: 'bi-muṣriḵi,' with a kasrah on the 'ya,' which is weak, and they cited for it an unknown verse: "He said to her: 'Do you have any need, O Tafi?' She said to him: 'You are not the one who is pleased.'"

The speaker is unknown. And 'ta' is a demonstrative pronoun, meaning: Do you, O this woman, have a desire for. The original form of the first-person pronoun is silent, but if it is moved, it is with a vowel. However, since here a silent letter meets the preceding 'ya', it is permissible to break it, according to the original rule of avoiding the meeting of two silent letters.

And she said: This is a resumption, as if it were said to him: So what did she say? He said: She said to him: You are not pleasing, for you are a man who proceeds in every matter they have involved you in. 'Proceeding' is a predicate for a deleted subject. The sentence is a resumption answering the question about the reason for the lack of approval. And he expressed it with the third-person pronoun in the saying: They are peers of goodness. It is permissible to estimate the subject as the word 'he', thus indicating a shift from address to the third person, signaling a turning away from him, and mentioning the reason to another.

And it is as if he estimated the 'ya' of the addition as silent, and before it is a silent 'ya', so he moved it with a break according to the original rule of avoiding the meeting of silent letters, but this is not correct, because the 'ya' of addition can only be open, where it is preceded by an 'alif' as in 'my stick', so how is it when preceded by a 'ya'? If you say: The first 'ya' was treated like a correct letter due to the assimilation, as if it were a 'ya' that became silent after a correct silent letter, thus it was moved with a break according to the original.

I say: This is a good analogy, but the widespread usage, which is like a widely transmitted report, diminishes the analogies. 'Ma' in 'bi-ma ashraktumuni' is a verbal noun, and 'min qablu' is related to 'ashraktumuni', meaning: I disbelieved today in your associating me before this day, that is, in the world, as His saying: 'And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disbelieve in your association.' And the meaning of his disbelief in their associating him is his disavowal of it and his rejection of it, as His saying: 'Indeed, we disavow you and what you worship besides Allah; we have disbelieved in you.' And it is said: 'min qablu' relates to 'disbelieved'.

And 'ma' is a relative pronoun, meaning: I disbelieved from the time I refused to prostrate to Adam in that which you associated me with, which is Allah, the Exalted. You say: I associated with Zayd, and if you transferred it with the hamzah, you would say: 'Ashrakani fulan', meaning: He made me a partner for him.

And similar to this 'ma' is 'ma' in their saying: 'Glory be to what You have made subservient to us.' And the meaning of their associating the devil with Allah is their obedience to him in what he beautified for them of the worship of idols and others. This is the end of the saying of Iblis. And the saying: 'Indeed, the wrongdoers' is the saying of Allah, the Exalted. It is possible that it is part of the saying of Iblis, and Allah, the Exalted, narrated what he will say at that time, to be a kindness for the listeners in considering their outcome and preparing for what they must reach, and to imagine for themselves that position in which the devil will say what he says, so that they fear and do what saves them from it and rescues them. And it was read: 'So they do not blame me,' with the 'ya' in a manner of shifting, like His saying: 'Until you were in the ship and it ran with them.'