Except in the language of his people, so that he may clarify for them, meaning so that they may understand from him what he calls them to, so that they have no excuse against Allah. [Mawood said: "Meaning so that they may understand from him what he calls them to, so that they have no excuse... etc." Ahmad said: All of the section is acceptable, but there is a consideration in this conclusion, because it implies that the miracle of the Qur'an in terms of the Arabic language specifically falls short of its miracle, if it were to be revealed in every language. Indeed, if it were revealed in all languages, it would reach a clarity that could almost compel belief in it. This is questionable, and the assertion of it is not necessary, because the miracle provides knowledge of the truthfulness of the one through whom it appears. Whenever knowledge is obtained, there is no difference or preference between one knowledge and another. If the Qur'an were revealed in all languages, the knowledge obtained from it, even if it were revealed in one language, is the same knowledge obtained from it if it were revealed in all. There is no difference or preference between the two knowledges; this is the truth, and Allah knows best. Al-Zamakhshari builds much of his speech on the idea that sciences differ and are divided into clear and clearer, which is far from the truth. This was only assumed by a group of literalists. May Allah grant success.] And they should not say: We did not understand what we were addressed with, as He said: 'And if We had made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would have said: Why have its verses not been detailed?'

If you say: The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, was not sent only to the Arabs, but rather he was sent to all people. Say: O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, and to the two weighty ones, who are of different tongues. If the Arabs do not have an excuse, then others do not have an excuse, and if others do not have an excuse, then if it were revealed in a non-Arabic language, the Arabs would also not have an excuse. I say: It must either be revealed in all tongues or in one of them. There is no need for it to be revealed in all tongues, because translation suffices for that and is enough to avoid lengthiness. So it remains that it is revealed in one language, and the most appropriate language is the language of the people of the Messenger, because they are closest to him. If they understand from him and clarify it, and it is transmitted from them and spread, translations will stand in its explanation and understanding, as you see the situation and witness it from the representation of translations in every nation of the non-Arabs, along with what is in that from the agreement of the people of distant lands and the widely differing regions, [The phrase 'and the widely differing regions' means those that are very far apart. This was noted in Al-Sihah.] and the different nations and the varying generations, on one book, and their efforts in learning its wording and understanding its meanings, and what branches from that of great benefits, and what accumulates in exhausting souls and straining minds in it, from the nearness and acts of worship leading to great reward. And because it is further from distortion and alteration, and safer from dispute and disagreement. And if it were revealed in all the tongues of the two weighty ones—with their differences and multitude—and it was independent in the attribute of miracle in each one of them, and the Arabic Messenger spoke to each nation in its language as he spoke to his own nation from which he is, reciting to them as a miracle—this would be something close to compulsion. And the meaning of 'in the language of his people' is in the language of his people. It has been read: 'in the tongues of his people.' The tongues and the language are like feathers and plumage, meaning language. It has been read: 'in the tongues of his people' with the lam and the seen either pronounced or silent, and it is a plural of language, like 'pillar' and 'pillars' and 'pillars' in its light form. It is said that the pronoun in 'his people' refers to Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, and it was narrated from Al-Duhak. And that all books were revealed in Arabic, then each prophet conveyed it in the language of his people, which is not correct, because the saying 'so that he may clarify for them' refers to the people, and they are the Arabs, which leads to the meaning that Allah revealed the Torah from the heavens in Arabic to clarify for the Arabs, and this is a false meaning. 'And Allah leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills,' as He said: 'And among you is a disbeliever and among you is a believer,' because Allah does not lead astray except the one He knows will not believe.

And none is guided except the one who knows that he believes. The intended meaning of misguidance is abandonment and the prevention of kindness. This is according to the Mu'tazila. As for the Ahl al-Sunnah, they say that misguidance is created in the heart, because Allah does not create evil according to the Mu'tazila, and He creates it like good according to the Ahl al-Sunnah. And by guidance: it is success and kindness. Thus, this was a metaphor for disbelief and faith. And He is the Almighty, so His will cannot be overcome. The Wise does not forsake except the people of forsakenness, and He does not bestow kindness except upon the people of kindness.