If you say, the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "Except for the family of Lot" is a connected or disconnected exception? [Mahrud said: "If you say, is the first exception connected ... etc."] Ahmad said: Making the first one disconnected is preferable and more plausible. This is because in their exception from the pronoun referring to a people who are criminals, there is a distance, in that the position of the exception is to exclude what would otherwise include the exception in the ruling of the first. This inclusion is impossible due to the indefiniteness, and therefore you rarely find an indefinite noun being excluded except in the context of negation, because then it is more general, and the inclusion would be realized were it not for the exception. Hence, it is not appropriate to say, "I saw a people except for Zaid," and it is good to say, "I saw no one except for Zaid," and Allah knows best. I say, it does not escape being an exception from a people, so it would be disconnected, because the people are described as criminals, thus the two types differ. Or it could be an exception from the pronoun in "criminals," so it would be connected, as if it were said: to a people who have all committed crimes except for the family of Lot alone, as He said: "And We found not therein any except a single house of Muslims." If you say: does the meaning differ due to the difference in the exceptions? I say: Yes, because the family of Lot is excluded in the disconnected from the ruling of sending, and that they were sent to the criminal people specifically, and they were not sent to the family of Lot at all. The meaning of sending them to the criminal people is like sending a stone or an arrow to the target. It is in the meaning of punishment and destruction, as if it were said: We have destroyed a criminal people, but we saved the family of Lot. As for in the connected, they are included in the ruling of sending, and that the angels were sent to them all to destroy these and save those, so the sending is not exclusive [The phrase "the sending is not exclusive" might mean: not specific.] in the sense of destruction and punishment as in the first case. If you say: So what does the saying "Indeed, We will surely save them" relate to in both cases? I say: If the exception is disconnected, it is like the news of "but" in connection with the family of Lot, because the meaning is: but the family of Lot is saved. If it is connected, it is an independent statement, as if Ibrahim, peace be upon him, asked them: What is the situation of the family of Lot? They said: Indeed, We will save them. If you say: So what does the saying "except his wife" exclude from? And is it an exception from an exception? I say: It is excluded from the genitive pronoun in the saying "We will surely save them" and it is not an exception from an exception at all, because an exception from an exception only occurs in what is unified in the ruling. It could be said: We destroyed them except for the family of Lot, except for his wife, just as the ruling is unified in the saying of the one who pronounces divorce: You are divorced three times, except for two, except for one. And in the saying of the one who acknowledges: To so-and-so, I owe ten dirhams, except for three, except for one dirham. As for in the verse, the rulings differ, because "except for the family of Lot" is related to "We sent" or to "criminals."

And if not for his wife, he would have been attached to their salvation. How can there be an exception from an exception? It has been read as 'lamunajjihum' with both lightening and heavy pronunciation. If you say: Why is it permissible to attach the action of estimation in His saying 'We have decreed that she is among the remaining'? [[His words returned. Mahmoud said: 'If you say, why is it permissible to attach the action of estimation in His saying 'We have decreed that she is among the remaining,' etc.' Ahmad said: 'This is also from their hidden beliefs of the Mu'tazila in denying divine decree and predestination, and believing that the matter is new, because they do not believe that Allah, glorified and exalted is He, intends most of the actions of His servants, whether sinful or permissible, nor does He decree them upon the servants, meaning that He intends but is aware of what they will do contrary to His will and intention. Thus, estimation for them is knowledge, not will. Then he argued that estimation is knowledge by estimating His action from the work, and that is from the characteristics of the action of knowledge and its like. So look at the depth of his insight and the precision of his intelligence in seeking a verse to fabricate and oppose the clear proofs that contradict it. In his words is evidence against his rejection, for estimation for him implies the meaning of knowledge, and it is the nature of the action that implies another meaning to remain upon its original meaning, added to the incidental meaning, thus benefiting both. Therefore, estimation, as it implies the incidental knowledge, fundamentally and originally implies will. And Allah knows best. There are some people who consider His saying 'We have decreed that she is among the remaining' to be from His words, not attributed to the angels, and this is apparent. For whoever attributes it to the angels needs an interpretation regarding their estimation of themselves, and makes it from the saying of the special ones of the king: 'We have arranged such and such, and we have commanded such and such,' while they mean the arrangement and command of the king, and thus al-Zamakhshari interpreted it. Even though its origin does not require interpretation, because if 'We have decreed' is taken to mean 'We have known that she is among the remaining,' there is no surprise in the knowledge of the angels about that by Allah, glorified and exalted is He, informing them of it. Interpretation is only needed for the one who takes 'We have decreed' to mean 'We intended and decreed' and attributes it to the angels. And Allah knows best.]] And is the attachment one of the characteristics of the actions of the hearts? I said: Because the action of estimation contains the meaning of knowledge, and for this reason, the scholars interpreted Allah's estimation of the actions of the servants as knowledge. If you say: Why did the angels attribute the action of estimation—which is solely for Allah—to themselves, and did not say: 'Allah decreed'? I said: Because of their closeness and special relationship with Allah that no one else has, just as the special ones of the king say: 'We have arranged such and such, and we have commanded such and such,' while the arranger and the commander is the king, not they. They only show their exclusivity and that they do not distinguish themselves from Him. It has been read: 'Qaddarna' with lightening.