Medinan, and it is two hundred and eighty-six verses. 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.'

Did you not know that the words used to spell names are the letters that are spread out, from which the words are constructed? So your saying - 'Dad' - is a name given to 'Dha' from 'Daraba' when you spell it out. Likewise: 'Ra', 'Ba' are two names for your saying: 'Ra', 'Ba'. And in this naming, there is a subtlety, which is that the named, since they are words like their names, are single letters, and the names have a number of letters that ascend to three. They found a way to indicate in naming the named, so they did not overlook it, and they made the named the beginning of each name, as you see, except for the letter 'Alif', for they borrowed the hamzah in place of its named because it can only be silent. Among what is comparable in embedding the word with a meaning are the phrases of 'tahlil', 'tahqiq', 'hayyala', and 'basmalah', and its ruling - as long as it is not disturbed by the factors - is that it should be in a state of pause like the names of numbers. It is said: 'Alif Lam Mim', just as it is said: 'One, Two, Three'. And if you follow it with factors, it will be affected by grammatical case. You say: 'This is Alif', and 'I wrote Alif', and 'I looked at Alif', and so on for every name you aimed to express its essence alone, before any factors affect it. It is your right to pronounce it in a paused manner. Do you not see that if you wanted to present to the accountant different kinds to raise their accounts, how would you do it and how would you present them free from the mark of grammatical case? You would say: 'House', 'Boy', 'Girl', 'Garment', 'Carpet'. If you were to inflect them, you would be going astray. If you say: 'Why have you deemed these words to be names? And why do you claim they are letters as stated in the expressions of the ancients?' I say: I have clarified with bright evidence that they are names, not letters. Thus, I learned that their saying is worthy of being directed to leniency. We have found them lenient in naming many names that do not raise any issue in their naming, such as circumstances and others, using the letter in the meaning of the word. This is because your saying: 'Alif' indicates the middle letters of 'Qal' and 'Qama', just as 'Faras' indicates the specific animal. There is no superiority in relation to the naming between the two indications. Do you not see that a letter is what indicates a meaning in another? And this, as you see, indicates a meaning in itself, and because it is variable in its inclination like your saying: 'Ba', 'Ta'. And in its emphasis like your saying: 'Ya', 'Ha'. And in its definition, and indefiniteness, and plurality and diminutiveness, and description, and attribution, and addition, and all that pertains to variable names. Then I found from the side of Al-Khalil a text on that. Sibawayh said: Al-Khalil one day asked his companions: 'How do you say if you want to pronounce the letter 'Kaf' [[Mahamud may Allah have mercy on him said: 'And Al-Khalil asked his companions how they pronounce the letter 'Kaf' ... etc. Ahmad may Allah have mercy on him said: 'And he also asked them how they pronounce the letter 'Qaf' from 'Qabil'? They said: 'Qaf', as they said before. He answered them as he did the first time and said: 'As for me, I say: 'Iqah', so he added a 'He' of pause because the pronounced letter is moving, and secondly, a hamzah of connection because it is silent.]] that is in 'Lak', and the 'Ba' that is in 'Daraba'? They said: 'We say: 'Ba', 'Kaf'. He said: 'You have only brought the name, and you did not pronounce the letter.' He said: 'I say: 'Kah', 'Bah'. And Abu Ali mentioned in the book 'Al-Hujjah' in: (Ya Seen): And the inclination of 'Ya', they said: 'Ya Zaid', in calling, so they inclined even though it is a letter. He said: 'If they have inclined what cannot be inclined from the letters because of the 'Ya', then it is more appropriate for them to incline the name which is 'Ya Seen'.

Do you not see that these letters are names for what is pronounced by them? If you say: 'What kind are they among the names, are they inflected or fixed?' I say: Rather, they are inflected names, and they are silent like Zaid and Amr and other names where grammatical case does not touch them due to the absence of what necessitates and obliges it. The evidence that their silence is a pause and not a fixed state is:

If it were built, it would be similar to: how, and where, and these. And he did not say: S, Q, N combined in it between the two consonants. If you say: then what about the word that is spelled with an ending of an alif that is limited, when it is made indefinite, it is said this is B, and Y, and H, and that suggests that its form is like your saying 'no' limited. If you make it a noun, you would extend it and say: I wrote 'no'? I say: this suggestion diminishes by what I have summarized from the evidence and the reason that it was limited in spelling, and extended when it was affected by grammatical case: that the state of spelling is suitable for the lighter and more concise, and its use in it is more. If you say: it has become clear that they are names for the letters of the alphabet, and that they are of the type that can be inflected, and that the silence of their endings when spelled is for the sake of stopping, what is the reason for their occurrence in this form as openings for the chapters? I say: there are several aspects to it: the first, and upon which most agree: that they are the names of the chapters. The author of the book has translated the section that he broke on mentioning them in the definition of what does not decline with 'The Section of the Names of the Chapters' and they are in that divided into two types: the first is what cannot be inflected, such as: Kaf Ha Ya Ain Sad, and Alif Lam Meem. The second is what can be inflected, and it is either a singular name like S and Q and N, or several names combined in the form of a singular like 'Ha Meem' and 'Ta Sin' and 'Ya Sin' for they are comparable to Qabil and Habil, and likewise 'Ta Sin' can be opened in its Noun, and it becomes a Mīm joined to 'Ta Sin' making them one name like 'Darabjird'. The first type is merely reported, and as for the second type, both inflection and reporting are permissible. Al-Qatīl Muhammad ibn Talhah Al-Sajjād said, and he is Shurayh ibn Awf Al-Absi: [His saying 'Al-Qatīl Muhammad ibn Talhah ... etc.' thus Al-Bukhari attributed it to Shurayh in the Tafsir of Ghafir. And its wording is: It is said that (Ha Meem) is a name. For the saying of Shurayh ibn Abi Awf, he mentioned it. And this was attributed to others than Shurayh, in the Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd and the Mustadrak of Al-Hakim from the narration of Al-Waqidi from Muhammad ibn Al-Duhak ibn Uthman from his father who said: Muhammad ibn Talhah was on the day of the Camel with his father, and Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, forbade his killing and said: Whoever sees the owner of the black cloak, do not kill him - meaning him - then a man from Banu Asad ibn Khuzaymah killed him, it is said his name was Talhah ibn Mudlij, and it was said: Shaddad ibn Muawiyah Al-Absi. And it was said: 'Isam ibn Mutashir' and this is what most say. And he is the one who speaks of his killing. He mentioned it. I say: and he is among the verses. The first of which is: 'And Ash'ath is a standing with the signs of his Lord ... little harm in what the eye sees is a Muslim.' It reminds me of Ha Meem and the spear is sharp ... so why not recite Ha Meem before the advance? [And Ash'ath is a standing with the signs of his Lord ... little harm in what the eye sees is a Muslim. I pierced his shirt with the spear ... so he fell dead for the hands and the mouth. For nothing other than that he was not a follower ... of Ali, and whoever does not follow the truth is wronged. It reminds me of Ha Meem and the spear is sharp ... so why not recite Ha Meem before the advance?

On the day of the Camel, when Abu Talhah commanded Muhammad ibn Talhah to step forward for battle, he was a relative of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. Whenever a man charged at him, he would say: 'I urge you by [the verse] (Say, I do not ask of you for it any reward except for love of kinship).' Until the Absi charged at him and killed him. He began to say: 'By the Lord of the disheveled one, from the effects of worship, much standing and working with the verses of his Lord, or standing at night reciting them, little harm.' And he narrated the karrā: meaning sleep, and he narrated the qadhā: which is what falls into the eye and causes it to close. He used the term 'little' to denote little sleep as seen by the eye: meaning in the sight of the eye. I pierced: meaning I pierced for him with the spear the collar: meaning the collar of his shirt, a metaphor for stabbing him in the chest or from behind until it passed through his chest, or I tied and fastened the collar of his shirt to his chest so that he fell down, thrown on his hands and face. And he expressed it with the mouth as an exaggeration in punishment and because it is the first part that touches the ground from the face, and that is without any reason other than that he does not follow Ali ibn Abi Talib. And so is the case of everyone who does not follow the truth, that he is punished and humiliated. It reminds me of Hāmīm, while my spear is mixed in his clothes and ribs. And it was said that the meaning is: while the spears are mixed and the war is ongoing. And his saying 'then why not' contains a kind of reproach: meaning it was his right to remind me of it before advancing to war.

And he expressed Hāmīm and prevented it from being declined, and so is everything that is expressed from its sisters due to the presence of the two reasons that prevent its declension, which are: being proper and feminine. And the narration is that it comes with the saying after transferring it while preserving its original form. Like saying: 'Leave me from two dates,' and I began with praise of Allah, and I recited a Surah We sent down. He said: 'We found in the book of the Banu Tamim... Is it true that the horses are most deserving of the borrowed running.'

It implies the purebred horses, so it is a vigorous horse... It is thin in it, with a slender waist.

As if its back and the horses are disheveled... On the day of its galloping, it is a rope.

As if the rustling of its nostrils, when... It contains the asthma of a borrowed bellows.

For Bashar ibn Abi Khazim al-Asadi, and it was said for al-Turmāh. And the running: is the rider striking his mount with his foot, and the borrowed horse: goes here and there playfully when it escapes, and its owner has lent it, so it is borrowed. Abu Ubaidah said: and people see it, meaning they think the borrowed one is from the lending, and that is a mistake. And it is narrated: the borrowed with a kasrah on the meem. And it is narrated: he raises, instead of he implies. And the purebreds are the plural of 'asil' like 'asāl' which are the late afternoons. Meaning it is left without fodder from the beginning of the day so that it becomes thin-bellied by the end of it, or it is prepared and sent for battle at the end of the day, so what about the beginning of it? And the vigorous: is thick on the sides, raised ribs, and the slender, thin waist, and the thin - like most names of the passive participle - is the raised, long-legged one, and it is permissible to make it a name of the active participle meaning the one who is raised, plump with flesh.

It is said: he thinned it with emphasis, he raised it, so it also thinned: meaning he raised, and it is said the she-camel thinned likewise: if it continued on its journey.

And the thinness: is the thinness of the body and its leanness. And the back: is the top of the back. And the galloping: is the speed of the horses. And the rope: is the cord. He likened the back to it in extension and firmness, and his saying: 'and the horses are disheveled,' is a circumstantial clause, and 'disheveled' is the plural of 'ash' or 'shath,' and 'on the day' is a time frame for it.

And the rustling: is the sound of running and flying. It is said: the horse rustled rustling, and I made it carry it on the rustling, and the pronoun in 'it contains' refers to the horses. And the asthma: is the increase and what has risen from the ground, and the high soul, and the swelling of the horse from running or fright. It is said from it: 'Raba yarbu,' if it took the asthma: meaning if the nostrils of the horses were constricted from expelling the breath due to their incapacity, my horse's nostrils were wide like the bellows - which is the inflator of the blacksmith - for the height of its breath and its fluctuation, and he made it borrowed to indicate that it has been passed around by hands. He says: we found in the speech of our ancestors this saying, so 'most deserving' is the subject, and 'the borrowed' is the predicate, and the sentence is reported, its place is accusative with 'we found.' And Dhū al-Rumma said:

I heard the people seeking rain... So I said to Saydah, 'Seek Bilala.' [The one who praises Bilal is Abu Buraydah, and they are a title and nickname for 'Amir ibn Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, who was the governor of Basra and its judge. Saydah is the name of the poet's she-camel. The people is raised as a subject: meaning I heard this saying and narrated it as it was, and it was not made accusative because it implies that the action of seeking rain is something that is heard, and that is not the case, as it means they are traveling seeking rain, or it means they are asking for rain, that is, rain or pasture growing from it. It was narrated with the people in the accusative, so seeking rain means they are speaking of asking for it.

And it was narrated, 'I saw the people.' Ibn al-Qatta' said: 'It is not correct with the raising, because the sighting does not occur on the words, and it is likened to its preparation and readiness to travel to it, to drive it or to lead it to him by commanding it to go to him, and asking for it to arrange the journey on each according to the way of explicitness. It is possible that he likened it to an intelligent being and addressed it in this way metaphorically: 'Seek Bilal, for he is more beneficial than what the people seek.' And when Bilal heard that, he said: 'O boy, feed Saydah with qata and nuway.' And qata is a type of tender plant.]

Another said:

They called out for departure tomorrow... And in their traveling is my soul. [It was narrated with the raising as it is a subject, and tomorrow - that is, in tomorrow - is its predicate. And in the accusative: a source for a hidden verb, and all of that is in narration. It was narrated in the genitive as is original, and tomorrow is a circumstance for the departure, and in their traveling: that is, with their departure my soul - that is, my spirit - as if his beloved took his soul and left him dead due to his heart's attachment to her. It is possible that he borrowed it for his beloved in an explicit manner, for with her is his life and joy, as if he dies from parting with her due to his sorrow.]

And it was narrated in the accusative and genitive. The people of Hijaz say in inquiry from one who says: 'I saw Zayd,' from Zayd?

And Sibawayh said: 'I heard from the Arabs: not from where, O young man.' If you say: 'What is the reason for the reading of those who read: Sad, Qaf, and Nun with openings?' [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'If you say: What is the reason for those who read Sad, Qaf, and Nun with openings... etc.? Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'His words on the first face necessitate that they are inflected, and on the second face it is possible that he meant that the opening - due to the meeting of the two consonants - arose from the stillness of the narration, for it is narrated as still and devoid of the mark of inflection, so the movement would not be inflection, as there is no necessity for it with narration, nor construction as it is inflected according to this estimation. It is possible that he meant that they are constructed, so the movement is like it in 'where' and 'how' as a movement of construction. The first is the apparent meaning of his intention, for he affirmed earlier that they are inflected, and Sibawayh explicitly stated in his book what he mentioned in his wording, saying: 'As for Sad, it does not need to be made a foreign name, for its weight is in their speech. However, it is permissible that it is the name of the surah, so it is not declined. It is also permissible that (Ya-Sin) and (Sad) are two names that are not established, thus they require the opening as the names that are not established require movements such as: how, where, and yesterday.' This is the saying of Sibawayh. And it contains a refutation of al-Zamakhshari, may Allah have mercy on him, in his insistence that they are inflected and that their opening is an accusative or due to the meeting of the two consonants that is incidental to narration as appeared from his previous statement, and there will come to him also what indicates that it is not permissible to construct them at all. I say: after conceding that the first is the apparent meaning of his intention, what he mentioned - narrating from Sibawayh - is not applicable to him, for he chose one of the two faces.]] I said: The most appropriate thing to say is: that is accusative and not an opening, and it was not accompanied by tanween due to the impossibility of declension as I mentioned. Its being accusative is due to an implied verb. Like: 'Mention,' and Sibawayh permitted such in: Ham, and Tsa, and Ya-Sin if it were read that way. And Abu Sa'id al-Sirafi reported that some of them read: Ya-Sin. And it is permissible to say: It was moved due to the meeting of the two consonants, as read by those who read: 'And not the misguided.'

If you say: Why did you not claim that it is an oath? [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Why did you not claim that it is an oath ... etc.?" Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It remains that it is established as an oath, and the waw is an addition according to the view of Al-Khalil and Sibawayh in similar cases. In this case, the addition follows the path of:

And there is no predecessor to anything if it is coming.

So the thing by which the oath is taken, even if it is in the accusative because it is a place that is recognized and in it is the news, is added in the genitive in consideration of that recognition. Here, it is more valid than the verse of Zuhayr mentioned because the accusative of the thing by which the oath is taken arises only from the omission of the preposition, which is fundamental in the oath. The accusative of the news is not fundamental in itself and does not arise from omission. Its limit is that the preposition may accompany its news as an addition, so consideration of the original is more deserving than consideration of the incidental. It has been clarified in Al-Fath, page two, two aspects: one is that it is a grammatical case, which either follows the way that Al-Zamakhshari presented, or is in the accusative according to the way I quoted from Sibawayh. The second is that there is neither grammatical case nor structure, and it is its occurrence at a pause in the narration.

And that it is in the accusative according to their saying: Yes, Allah, I will certainly do, and the verses of Allah, I will certainly do, on the omission of the preposition and the employment of the verb of the oath? And Dhul-Rumah said:

Is there not a person whose heart is sincerely for Allah?

[Is there not a person whose heart is sincerely for Allah ... and from his heart to me in the swift gazelles?

For Dhul-Rumah. And "man" is an indefinite noun described. And "my heart" is the subject. "Allah" is the oath in the accusative on the omission of the preposition and the employment of the implied verb of the oath. And "sincere" is the predicate, and the sentence is a description of "man" and "the swift gazelles" are those that rush to the right, just as "the straying ones" are those that rush to the left. He says: A person whose heart is sincerely for him, and Allah. And a person whose heart is not sincere for me, but rather repellent to me, as if he is from the swift gazelles in repulsion. And he repeated the description - even though the intention was to mention the attribute only - to indicate the independence of each of the two attributes with the intention of informing about it. This, and it is possible that the meaning is: that his heart is also sincere for me because some Arabs take a favorable omen from the swift ones. And there is a hint of comparing his beloved to the gazelle.]

And another said:

So that is the trust of Allah, the thareed.

[When the bread is mixed with meat ... that is the trust of Allah, the thareed.

"What" is extra. And "mix" means to combine, as "strike" means to hit, if it is made right and prepared. And "the trust of Allah" is raised as the subject, and the predicate is omitted, meaning: my oath or it is in the accusative by the implied verb of the oath after the omission of the preposition, meaning: I swear by the trust of Allah or it is in the genitive by the waw of the oath implied, but the Basri scholars restricted this to the word of glorification.

He says: If the bread is mixed with meat and combined with it, then that is the thareed and not anything else, and it is the right of the trust of Allah.]

I said: The Qur'an and the pen after these openings are sworn by them, so if you claimed that, you would combine between two oaths on one thing sworn by, and they have been forced to do that. Al-Khalil said regarding His saying, exalted is He: (By the night when it covers, and by the day when it appears, and by He who created the male and the female): The two other waw's are not like the first, but they are the waw's that include names to names in your saying: I passed by Zayd and Amr, and the first is like the ba and ta.

Sibawayh said: I said to Al-Khalil: Why are the last two not like the first? He said: I only swear by these things on something, and if his oath had ended with the first on something, it would have been permissible to use another saying, as in your saying: By Allah, I will certainly do it, by Allah, I will certainly go out today. And it is not strong to say: By your right and by the right of Zayd, I will certainly do it. The last 'wa' is a 'wa' of swearing that is only permissible when forced. He said: And you say: By my life, then by your life, I will certainly do it, so 'then' here is like the 'wa'. There is no way in what we are discussing to make the 'wa' for conjunction due to the second differing from the first in grammatical case. If you say: Then consider it as genitive by implying the swearing 'ba', not by omitting it, it has been reported from them: By Allah, I will certainly do it, in the genitive, and its counterpart is their saying: Your father is not so, except that it was opened in the place of the genitive because it is not declined. And make the 'wa' for conjunction so that you can adhere to what I indicated. I said: This is not far from the truth, and it is supported by what they narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: Allah swore by these letters. [It is reported by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Asma wa Al-Sifat, through Muawiya bin Salih, from Ali bin Talha from him with the wording: The disjointed letters at the beginning of the surahs are all oaths by which Allah swore. Ibn Mardawayh narrated this from this source in the Tafsir of Ta-Ha. He said: Ta-Ha and its like are oaths by which Allah swore. And they are among the names of Allah, the Exalted.]

If you say: What is the reason for the reading of some of them as 'Sad' and 'Qaf' with the kasra? [Mahamud said: If you say, what is the reason for the reading of some of them as 'Sad' and 'Qaf' with the kasra ... etc.? Ahmad said: This confirms to you its contradiction to what you quoted from the text of Sibawayh that it is not established. And it indicates to you that its opening, which he said before is for the meeting of the two consonants, is an opening of construction, for he only intended the temporary silence in the narration, not the silence of construction, which contradicts the text of Sibawayh as I have also pointed out.]? I said: Its reason is what I mentioned of the movement for the meeting of the two consonants, and what is elaborated as an excuse for the mover: That the pause has continued with these names, it resembled that which gathered at its end two consonants from the built forms, so it was treated sometimes like 'now' and other times like 'these'. If you say: Is it permissible for me in the narrated to do like what you permitted in the declined? [Mahamud said: Is it permissible for me in the narrated to intend swearing as you permitted me in the declined ... etc.? Ahmad said: Al-Zamakhshari prevented that 'Sad' be in the accusative for swearing due to what has preceded, and permitted that 'Ham' in the mentioned hadith be in the accusative for swearing, unlike 'Ham' in the Qur'an, for that must be in the accusative by implying the verb, or in the genitive for swearing.]

As for the accusative with the oath, it is only permitted in hadith. The difference, according to him, is that the prohibition of its permissibility in the Qur'an is due to the occurrence of the conjunction after it being contrary to it in grammatical case. This is because all the conjunctions are in the genitive case. He finds it impossible to make an oath in the case of hesitation, fearing the combination of two oaths on one subject. This is not the case with hadith, as nothing has come after it that contradicts it. Therefore, he has restricted the permissibility of this method to hadith. As for the method that he has validated, it encompasses the permissibility of this in both the Qur'an and hadith altogether. Regarding the intention of the meaning of the oath, I said: There is no harm in that. It is possible to imply the particle of the oath in the phrase of Allah, the Exalted: (Ha-Mim and the Clear Book), as if it were said: I swear by this surah and by the Clear Book: Indeed, We have made it. As for his saying, blessings and peace be upon him, 'Ha-Mim, they do not see,' it has been narrated by the authors of the three collections from the narration of Al-Muhallab from those who heard the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, say: 'Indeed, your house is the enemy, so let your slogan be: Ha-Mim, they do not see.' Al-Hakim said: The ambiguous one is Al-Bara' ibn 'Azib, may Allah be pleased with him. It has also been narrated in Al-Nasa'i, and there is a narration from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, in Al-Awsat by Al-Tabarani. In Al-Dala'il by Abu Na'im, it is mentioned regarding the Battle of Hunayn. And from Shaybah ibn 'Uthman in Al-Tabarani as well as from Abu Dajana Al-Ansari in the last part of Al-Dala'il by Al-Bayhaqi, in a long hadith. Thus, it is permissible for him to be judged with both the genitive and accusative cases by omitting and implying the preposition. If you say: What is the meaning of naming the surahs with these specific words? I say: It is as if the meaning is to indicate that the Furqan is nothing but every Arabic word known in composition from the meanings of these words, as Allah, the Exalted, said: (A Qur'an in Arabic). If you say: Why then is it written in the mushaf in the form of letters? Al-Mahmood, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'If you say: Why is it written in the mushaf in the form of letters... etc.?' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: On this meaning of the script of the mushaf deviating from the norm of writing, Al-Qadi, may Allah be pleased with him, relied in the book of Al-Intisar in response to what was narrated from 'Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him: That Ikrimah, when he presented the mushaf, found in it letters of error and said: Do not change them, for the Arabs will correct them with their tongues. If the writer was from Thaqif and the one dictating from these, these letters would not have been present in it. Al-Qadi said: 'Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, said this because Thaqif was more knowledgeable about the dialects, while Hudhayl would pronounce the hamzah. When the hamzah appeared in the word of the one dictating, the writer would write it in its form. What 'Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, intended was that those letters were written contrary to the norm of writing, like writing: prayer and zakat with a waw and not with an alif. Al-Qadi said: Allah has taken upon the guardians that they do not change the recitation. As for the script, He did not take upon them a specific form, so that it would not be permissible to deviate from the norm of a specific script of writing. Thus, the words themselves, not in the form of their names? I say: Because the words, when they were composed of letters, and the custom persisted that whenever it was spelled out and whenever the writer was told: Write so and so, he would pronounce the names and the letters would appear in writing themselves, he worked according to that familiar pattern in writing these openings. Furthermore, the fame of their matter, and the establishment of the tongues of the black and red for them, and that the one pronouncing them is not spelling them out, does not yield any significant benefit from them. And that some of them are singular, not occurring to the mind other than what is upon it from its source: It ensured the avoidance of confusion in them. It has been agreed upon in the script of the mushaf that there are things that deviate from the norms upon which the science of writing and spelling is based. Yet this does not cause harm or deficiency to the correctness of the word and the preservation of it. Following the script of the mushaf is a practice that does not contradict. Abdullah ibn Durstuwaih said in his book, translated as the Book of the Supplement: In writing and spelling, there are two scripts that are not comparable: the script of the mushaf, because it is a tradition, and the script of poetry, because it establishes what the utterance has established and omits what it has omitted. The second method:

That the occurrence of these names is thus listed in a manner of enumeration. [[Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The second view is that the occurrence of these names is thus listed in a manner of enumeration ... etc." Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "I only intended this section in the words of Al-Zamakhshari because it is the peak of craftsmanship and the height of eloquence, were it not for the neglect of a subtlety that, if he had followed it, would have completed his eloquence. This is that he built the beginning of the speech on negation and prolonged it, until he reached affirmation. Thus, the beginning of the speech is tied to its end, understood in the opposite manner whenever it concludes at a distance. It is as he criticized Abu Al-Tayyib for his words about horses: 'And I did not ride them except to victory ... and I did not attain them except for hope.' For he began the beginning and the end with the form of supplication against the addressee in the presentation, later recovering. This is only held against someone like Abu Al-Tayyib and Al-Zamakhshari because both of them have a high rank in eloquence that the listener is aware of such criticism.]] Like the awakening and the striking of the stick for those who challenged with the Qur'an and the strangeness of its composition, and like the stirring of thought in that this recited to them, while they were unable to produce anything like it, is composed speech from the same source from which they compose their speech, to lead them to certainty that their ability has not fallen short of it, and their miracle has not appeared [[The phrase 'and their miracle has not appeared' might be with a فتح on the م and ج, corresponding to ability (ع).]] to bring forth something like it after prolonged reviews, while they are the masters of speech and the leaders of dialogue, and they are the guardians of boasting [[The phrase 'of boasting' means to take pride in being able to produce something like it in poetry or prose, and its origin is from السجل: meaning the bucket that holds water. The brevity of speeches: improvising them, as indicated by the correct sources (ع).]] in the crafting of speeches, and those eager to excel in poetry and verse, and they have not reached the levels of grandeur and beauty of composition that surpassed the eloquence [[The phrase 'that surpassed the eloquence' means it dominated and took away (ع).]] of every speaker, and it has outshone the dust of every predecessor, and it has not exceeded the limit beyond the powers [[The phrase 'beyond the powers' might be from (ع).]] of the eloquent, and it has not fallen behind the aspirations of the discerning eyes except because it is not the speech of humans, and it is the speech of the Creator of powers and destiny. This statement is of strength and creativity in acceptance of a position, and for its supporter at first to say: The Qur'an was revealed in the tongue of the Arabs, poured into their styles and usages, and the Arabs did not exceed what they were called by [[The phrase 'did not exceed what they were called by' might be: by what, or it might be: in what. (ع)]] a combination of two names, and no one among them was named with a combination of three names, four, or five. The claim that these are the names of the surahs in reality leads to what is not in the language of the Arabs, and it also leads to the becoming of the name and the named one as one.

If you objected to him that this is a statement made for all time and that there is no way to refute it, he would respond that it has an interpretation other than what you think, and that it is similar to what people say: So-and-so narrates: 'Let us weep, and the homes have faded away.'

And the man says to his companion: What have you read? He says: (Praise be to Allah) and (A declaration of disavowal from Allah and His Messenger) and (Allah advises you concerning your children) and (Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth). These phrases are not the titles of these poems and these chapters and verses, but rather they refer to the recitation of the poem whose beginning is that, and the recitation of the chapter or verse whose opening is that. When the speech was conducted in a manner that aims at naming, and what is derived from it is derived from naming, they said that in a figurative sense rather than a literal one. The respondent to the two objections in the first manner may say: Naming with three names or more is indeed strange to me and a departure from the speech of the Arabs. However, if it is made a single name in the manner of Hadhramaut, then as for non-composite names scattered like the names of numbers, there is no strangeness in them because they are in the realm of naming what is right to be narrated, just as they named: 'the one who carried evil under his arm,' and 'the lightning of his throat,' and 'the one whose two horns turned gray.' And just as if he named: 'Zayd is departing,' or 'a line of poetry.' And suffice it to mention Sibawayh's comparison between naming with a phrase and a line of poetry, and between naming with a group of the names of the letters of the alphabet, as a decisive indication of its correctness. As for naming the entire chapter by its opening, it is not making the name and the named one, because it is a naming of the author alone, and the author is not singular. Do you not see that they made the name of the letter composed of it and two letters joined to it, as in their saying: 'Sad,' so it was not from making the name and the named one where the name is composed and the named is singular. The third manner is that the chapters are introduced by that so that the first thing to strike the ears is independent with a form of grammatical case, and a prelude of the signs of the miraculous. This is because the pronunciation of the letters themselves was equal among the Arabs: the illiterate among them and the people of the Book, unlike the pronunciation of the names of the letters, which was specific to those who wrote and read and mingled with the people of the Book and learned from them. It was strange and unlikely for the illiterate to speak them, as distant as writing and recitation, as Allah, glorified and exalted is He, said: (And you were not reciting before it any book, nor were you writing it with your right hand; otherwise, the falsifiers would have doubted). Thus, the ruling of pronouncing that - with the fame that he was not among those who borrowed anything from his people - is like the stories mentioned in the Qur'an, which Quraysh and those who followed its religion had no knowledge of, in that it was obtained for him from the direction of revelation, and a witness to the truth of his prophethood, and to the degree that he speaks in a foreign tongue without having heard it from anyone. And know that if you reflect on what Allah, exalted is He, has brought forth in the openings of these names, you will find them to be half of the names of the letters of the alphabet. [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'And know that if you reflect on what Allah, exalted is He, has brought forth in the openings of these names, you will find them to be half of the names of the letters of the alphabet... etc.' Ahmad said: 'There remains from the types of the strong letters, and Allah has mentioned half of them: the hamzah expressed by the alif, and the kaf, and the qaf, and the ta. And the ones that are pronounced with pressure, and Allah has mentioned half of them: the sad and the ta. ]

And the open letters, and half of them has been mentioned: the alif, the ha, the ra, the seen, the ain, the qaf, the kaf, the lam, the mim, the nun, the ha, and the ya. And the letters of hissing, since they are three: the seen, the sad, and the zay, there was no half for them, so two were mentioned: the seen and the sad. And that is the accustomed practice regarding what is intended to be halved, so it cannot be completed, thus the break occurs. Do you not see the divorce of the slave and the waiting period of the female slave and similar matters? And the soft letters, which are three: the alif, the ya, and the waw. Two were mentioned from them: the alif and the ya, like the letters of hissing. And the repeated letter is the ra. And the falling letter is the alif. And the deviating letter is the lam. And they have been mentioned. And there remains no category of letters outside of this pattern except for what is between the strong and the weak, for it was not limited to half because what was mentioned beyond half was included in other categories, so it could not be limited like the strong and the weak, thus there was no concern for it. As for the letters of articulation and the mute letters, it is correct that they are not counted as two distinct categories. For those who counted them as two distinct categories, there is a long confusion regarding their distinction, until al-Zamakhshari went far in his explanation of their distinction and said: The letters of articulation are those in which the speaker relies on the tip of the tongue - meaning its end - and this distinction is very much rejected because among them are the mim, the ba, and the fa. And there is no involvement of the tip of the tongue in them, then this distinction does not apply to their correspondence with the mute letters, as the mute letters are explained by him as letters that come from the composition of a four-letter word or more until one of the letters of articulation is included with them. So how can there be a comparison between the exit from the tip of the tongue and silence? The truth is that they are two categories with weak distinctions, so their flow according to the continuous pattern in other categories that are clearly distinguished was not considered. Al-Zamakhshari counted in this pattern the letters of quaking, and mentioned that half of those mentioned are: the qaf and the ta, and this is an error because they are five letters, and he mentioned from the openings only the two mentioned letters. In general, the observer does not advance to derive what has not been clarified in this pattern of categories in a way that can be relied upon. Fourteen letters are equal, which are: the alif, the lam, the mim, the sad, the ra, the kaf, the ha, the ya, the ain, the ta, the seen, the ha, the qaf, and the nun - in twenty-nine surahs according to the number of the letters of the alphabet. Then when you look at these fourteen, you find them encompassing half of the types of letters. The explanation of that is that among them are the voiceless letters half of them: the sad, the kaf, the ha, the seen, and the ha. And among the voiced letters half of them: the alif, the lam, the mim, the ra, the ain, the ta, the qaf, the ya, and the nun. And among the strong letters half of them: the alif, the kaf, the ta, and the qaf. And among the weak letters half of them: the lam, the mim, the ra, the sad, the ha, the ain, the seen, the ha, the ya, and the nun. And among the closed letters half of them: the sad and the ta. And among the open letters half of them: the alif, the lam, the mim, the ra, the kaf, the ha, the ain, the seen, the ha, the qaf, the ya, and the nun.

Among the elevated letters are half: the qaf, the sad, and the ta. Among the lowered letters are half: the alif, the lam, the mim, the ra, the kaf, the ha, the ya, the ain, the sin, the ha, and the nun. Among the letters of quaking, half are: the qaf and the ta. Then, when you examine the words and their structures, you will see the letters that Allah has omitted from mention among these counted categories are fewer than those mentioned. So glorified is He whose wisdom is precise in everything. And you have known that the majority of a thing and its essence is equivalent to its entirety. It corresponds to the subtleties of revelation and its abbreviations. It is as if Allah, exalted is His name, enumerated for the Arabs the words from which their speech is constructed, indicating what I mentioned about reproaching them and establishing the proof against them. And what indicates that He has encompassed in mention the letters of the alphabet, most of which occur in the structures of words, is that the alif and the lam, when they are frequently found in them, appear in most of these openings repeated. These are the openings of Surah Al-Baqarah, Al-Imran, Ar-Rum, Al-Ankabut, Luqman, As-Sajda, Al-A'raf, Ar-Ra'd, Yunus, Ibrahim, Hud, Yusuf, and Al-Hijr.

If you say: Why were they all counted at the beginning of the Qur'an? And why did they come separated across the surahs? I say: Because the repetition of the reminder that the challenge is composed of them and nothing else, and renewing it in more than one place achieves the purpose and establishes it in the ears and hearts more than mentioning it once. Likewise, the purpose of every repetition that comes in the Qur'an is to establish the repeated in the souls and confirm it. If you say: Why did they not come in a uniform manner? And why did the counts of their letters differ, such that ص, ق, and ن came on one letter, and طه, طس, يس, and حم on two letters, and الم, الر, and طسم on three letters, and المص and المر on four letters, and كهيعص and حم عسق on five letters? I say: This is to renew their fascination with styles of speech and their variation in it through various paths and diverse methods. Just as the structures of their words are based on one letter, two letters, up to five letters without exceeding that, these openings follow that path. If you say: What is the reason for the specificity of each surah with the opening that it is distinguished by? I say: If the purpose is the reminder—and all the beginnings are equal in fulfilling this purpose without preference—then seeking the reason for specificity is irrelevant, just as if a man names some of his children Zayd and others Amr, one would not ask him: Why did you specify this child with Zayd and that one with Amr? Because the purpose is distinction, which is achieved regardless of the path taken. Therefore, it is not said: Why is this type called a man and that one a horse?

And why is striking called a blow? And standing called an upright position? And its opposite sitting? If you say: Why did they count some of these openings as an ayah and not others? I say: This is a matter of transmission, and there is no room for analogy in it, like the knowledge of the surahs.

As for Alif Lam Meem, it is a verse wherever it occurs in the surahs that begin with it. There are six. Likewise, Alif Lam Sad is a verse, and Alif Lam Ra is not counted as a verse in its five surahs. Ta Seen Meem is a verse in its two surahs, and Ta Ha and Ya Seen are two verses. Ta Seen is not a verse, and Ha Meem is a verse in all its surahs. Ha Meem 'Ayn Seen Qaf are three that are not counted as a verse. This is the view of the Kufans, and those other than them do not count any of it as a verse. If you say: How is what is in the status of a single word counted as a verse? I say: Just as Ar-Rahman alone and Al-Muddathir alone are counted as two verses in the way of specification. If you say: What is its ruling in the matter of stopping? I say: It is stopped at all of them with the complete stop if it is carried on an independent meaning that does not need what comes after it. This is when they are not made names for the surahs and are not called out as sounds, or they are made alone as news of a deleted beginning, as His saying, the Exalted, says: (Alif Lam Meem) meaning this is Alif Lam Meem, then He began and said (Allah, there is no deity except Him). If you say: Do these openings have a place in grammar? [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'If you say: What is the place of these openings in grammar ... etc.? Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It is permissible to use the accusative with the oath in what is not followed by a genitive conjunction. As for what is followed by a genitive conjunction like Sad Qaf Nun, it does not permit the accusative with the oath at all, and it is carried on an implied verb, or that the opening is in the position of the genitive. As for the way it is initiated in what precedes, it is permissible to use the accusative with the oath in all of them, so renew your covenant with it. And regarding the accusative with the implied verb, Sibawayh expressed it in his book.]] I say: Yes, it has a place for those who made it names for the surahs because for them it is like other proper names. If you say: What is its place? I say: It has three possible cases; as for the nominative: it is on the subject, and as for the accusative and genitive, it is for what has been mentioned regarding the validity of the oath by it and its being like Allah and Allah in both dialects. And for those who did not make it names for the surahs, it is not conceivable that it has a place in their view, just as there is no place for the initiated sentences and the enumerated singulars.