It is possible that by 'man' the entire species is meant, and that some of the species, namely the disbelievers, are intended. If you say: Why is it permissible to intend all of mankind, when they are all not saying that? I say: Since this statement exists among those who are of their kind, it is valid to attribute it to all of them, just as they say: The sons of so-and-so killed so-and-so, while the killer is one of them. Al-Farazdaq said:

'It is the sword of the sons of Abs that struck him... Naba by the hand of Waraqah from the head of Khalid.' [This is by Al-Farazdaq, and this is his nickname, and his name is Hammam or Humeim. He means: Waraqah ibn Zuhayr ibn Judhaymah Al-Absi, who was commanded by Sulayman ibn Abdul Malik to behead some of the Roman captives, and he was given a sword that does not cut. He said: Rather, I will strike them with the sword of my father Raghwan Mujashi, meaning himself. So he struck Khalid's neck, and the sword veered and rose from the strike, and they laughed at him. The sword and the strike were attributed to the sons of Abs even though they belonged to one of them, in order to glorify and magnify them. And placing it in the hands indicates that he was resolute in his command and decisive in his determination, not negligent.

The meaning is that caution does not benefit against fate, as happened to Waraqah, even though he was extremely cautious, especially in front of the king. It is possible that he intends to blame the sons of Abs.]

Thus, the strike was attributed to the sons of Abs with the saying 'Naba by the hand of Waraqah,' and he is Waraqah ibn Zuhayr ibn Judhaymah Al-Absi.

If you say: What did 'if' depend on, and its dependence on 'came out' is impossible due to the 'lam'? You do not say: Today for Zayd is standing? I say:

It depends on an implied verb indicated by what has been mentioned. If you say: The 'lam' of beginning that enters on the present tense gives the meaning of the state, how does it combine with the letter of future? [[Mahamud said: 'If you say how did the 'lam,' which is for the state, combine with the letter of future... etc.' Ahmad said:

Due to the belief in the contradiction of the two letters: the Kufans prevented their combination. The 'lam' was stripped of its meaning to fit with 'sawfa' without stripping 'sawfa' to fit with the 'lam,' because if this were reversed, 'sawfa' would become meaningless, as it has no meaning other than future. As for the 'lam' when stripped of the state, it remains for emphasis, so it was not annulled, and it is determined, and Allah knows best.]] I say: It did not combine with it except as an emphasis, just as the hamzah in 'Ya Allah' was dedicated for compensation, and the meaning of definiteness faded from it. And 'ma' in 'if ma' is also for emphasis, as if they said:

'Is it true that we will come out alive when death and destruction are firmly established among us?' In a manner of denial and disbelief.

The intended meaning is the exit from the earth, or from the state of annihilation. Or it is from their saying: So-and-so came out knowledgeable, and came out brave: if he was rare in that, meaning: I will come out alive, rare, in a mocking manner. And Al-Hasan and Abu Haywah read:

I will certainly come out. And from Talhah ibn Masrif, may Allah be pleased with him: I will come out, like the reading of Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him: and He will certainly give you. The positioning of the circumstance and assigning it the particle of denial is because what comes after death is the time when the state of life is denied. From this came their denial. It is like saying to the one who wrongs the good-doer: When the blessing of so-and-so was completed upon you, did you wrong him? The 'and' connects 'does not remember' to 'says', and the denial's hamzah is placed between the connected phrase and the conjunction, meaning: Does he say that and not remember the state of the first creation so that he does not deny the other? [Mahamud said: 'Allah mentioned the first creation to make man acknowledge the other... etc.' Ahmad said: The doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that the re-creation of the non-existent is rationally permissible, then it is a matter transmitted. The Mu'tazilah, although they agreed on that, claim that the non-existent has a stable essence in non-existence, which is determined to be something. Thus, they do not have pure non-existence and absolute negation before existence or after it. It is as if they would have said the same as the philosophers who are their summary, and they would have denied the re-creation of the non-existent as the ancients denied it. The belief of Ahl al-Sunnah is in accordance with the verse, because the first creation did not precede it existence, and the created was initially nothing before that. As for the second creation, it was preceded by existence, and the created was something in the time of its existence, then it ceased and its essence was invalidated. Thus, a difference appeared between the two creations as stated in the Qur'an. As for the Mu'tazilah, if they say: Allah causes bodies to cease to exist and then brings them into existence, they have spoken the truth, but their principle does not establish a difference between the two creations, because the non-existent in both was something before creation. If they say that bodies do not cease to exist, but rather disperse and then gather as stated by al-Zamakhshari, it is because he realized that the claim that bodies cease to exist and then Allah brings them into existence, along with the claim that the non-existent is something, nullifies the difference between the two creations, and they could not bear that. The Qur'an has stated it, so they adhered to the idea that bodies do not cease to exist in order to maintain the difference between the second creation—rather, it is in this account a gathering and composition of the existing— and the first creation, which is the creation of the non-existent. So, be aware of its deep implications, but he fled from the rain and fell under the eaves. Thus, in this state, he is like the one seeking refuge from the heat with fire. And Allah is the Grantor of success. The meaning of Allah's differentiation between the two creations is that the denier is inconsistent because he acknowledged the first, which is more difficult according to rational estimation, and denied the second, which is easier and lighter, because that returns to His power, glorified and exalted is He. For everything is easy before the power of Allah, glorified and exalted is He, compared to others.