In the swearing of Allah, glorified and exalted is He, by His name, added to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him: it is an exaltation of the status of the Messenger of Allah and a raising of him, just as He raised the status of the heavens and the earth in His saying: "So, by the Lord of the heavens and the earth, it is certainly true." The 'and' in 'and the devils' may be for conjunction, and it means 'with', and it is more appropriate to mean 'with'. The meaning is that they will be gathered with their counterparts among the devils who misled them. Every disbeliever will be paired with a devil in a chain. If you say: This is if the meaning of 'man' is intended specifically for the disbelievers, then if 'mankind' is intended in general, [he returned to his words. He said: "And 'man' may be intended in general... etc." Ahmad said: The intention of generality became confused with the inclusion of the general, and there is a gap between them, and thus his expression is devoid of caution and protection. He stated that Allah, glorified and exalted is He, intended by 'man' the generality, and the meaning of intending the generality is that Allah, glorified and exalted is He, intends to attribute the word of doubt and disbelief to every individual of mankind, and may Allah protect us. Al-Zamakhshari stated that the one who utters the word of doubt is part of the species, and in the expression there is a flaw as you see. The correct expression is to say: It is possible that the definition is generic, so it becomes specific, and the term is initially specific, and Allah knows best.]] How can their gathering with the devils be justified? I say: When all people are gathered together, and among them are the disbelievers paired with the devils. They have been gathered with the devils just as they have been gathered with the disbelievers. If you say: Why are the happy ones not separated from the miserable ones in the gathering as they are separated in the recompense? I say: They were not distinguished from each other in the gathering, and they were brought forth where they knelt around Hell, and they were brought to the fire with them so that the happy ones may witness the states from which Allah saved them and rescued them, so they may increase in joy upon joy and happiness upon happiness, and they may gloat over the enemies of Allah and their enemies, thus their misery and regret increase, along with what disturbs them from the happiness of the allies of Allah and their gloating over them. If you say: What is the meaning of bringing them kneeling? I say: If 'man' is interpreted specifically, the meaning is that they will approach from the gathering to the shore of Hell in a state of being dragged [[The term 'dragged' refers to violent pulling. This was clarified in the lexicon.]] in the same condition they were in at the standing, kneeling on their knees, not walking on their feet, as the people of the standing are described as kneeling. Allah, glorified and exalted is He, said: "And you will see every nation kneeling," as is customary in the positions of arguments and exchanges, as the people kneel on their knees, due to the intensity of the matter that they cannot stand on their feet, so they crawl on their knees. If interpreted in general, the meaning is that they will kneel upon arriving at the shore of Hell, in a kneeling state as they were in the standing, because it is a consequence of the standing for reckoning before reaching reward and punishment. The term 'Shi'a'—which is a form like 'group' and 'youth'—refers to the group that followed [[The term 'followed' means to follow. This was clarified in the lexicon.]] a misguided one from the misled. Allah, glorified and exalted is He, said: "Indeed, those who divided their religion and became sects," meaning: We distinguish from every group of misguidance and corruption, the most disobedient among them, so we will punish them, and the most rebellious among them, so we will punish them. When they gather, we will cast them into the fire in order, starting with the first of them in punishment.

Or he means by those who are more deserving of it, the ones who are seized as they are. It is as if he said: Then we certainly know better about the punishment of these, and they are more deserving of punishment than the rest of the punishers. Their levels are lower, and their torment is more severe. It is possible that he means by 'more severe' the leaders of the factions and their imams, due to their greater crime of being misled and misleading others. Allah, the Most High, said: 'Those who disbelieved and hindered from the path of Allah, We increased them in punishment above the punishment because of what they used to corrupt.' And they will bear their burdens and burdens along with their burdens. There is a difference of opinion regarding the grammatical case of 'which of them is more severe.' According to Al-Khalil, it is in the nominative case as a quotation. Its meaning is: 'Those who will be said about them, which of them is more severe.' Sibawayh holds that it is constructed in the nominative due to the omission of the beginning of the sentence that is its relative clause, so that if it were brought, it would be parsed. It was said: 'Which of them is the more severe?' It is also possible that the removal is occurring from each faction, as His saying, glorified and exalted is He: 'And We granted them from Our mercy,' means that We will remove some from each faction. It is as if someone said: 'Who are they?' It was said: 'Which of them is more severe in transgression?' And 'which of them is more severe' is in the accusative case according to Talhah ibn Mursif and Mu'adh ibn Muslim Al-Hirrah, the teacher of Al-Farra. If you say: What do 'on' and 'by' relate to? Since their relation to the two sources is not possible? I say: They are for clarification, not for the relative clause. Or they relate to 'more severe,' meaning: Their transgression is more severe against the Most Merciful, and their punishment is more deserving of the Fire, as they say: 'He is more severe against his opponent,' and 'he is more deserving of such and such.'