And when it is said to them, it is connected to "they deny." It is also permissible to connect it to: "they say we have believed," because if you said: "And among the people are those who, when it is said to them, do not cause corruption," it would be correct, and the first is more appropriate.

Corruption is the departure of something from its state of uprightness and its being beneficial. Its opposite is righteousness, which is obtaining the upright and beneficial state. Corruption in the land refers to the stirring of wars and seditions, for in that is the corruption of what is in the land and the absence of uprightness from the conditions of people, crops, and religious and worldly benefits.

Allah, the Exalted, said: "And when he goes away, he strives in the land to cause corruption in it and destroy crops and offspring," "Will You place in it one who causes corruption in it and sheds blood?" From this, a war that occurred between Tayy was called the War of Corruption. The corruption of the hypocrites in the land was that they would lean towards the disbelievers and ally with them against the Muslims by revealing their secrets to them and inciting them against them. This leads to the stirring of seditions among them. Therefore, when this was their action leading to corruption, they were told: "Do not cause corruption," just as you would say to a man: "Do not kill yourself with your own hands," or "Do not throw yourself into the fire," when he is about to do something with such consequences.

And "Indeed" is for limiting the ruling to something, as in your saying: "Indeed, Zaid speaks," or for limiting something to a ruling as in your saying: "Indeed, Zaid is a writer." The meaning of "Indeed, we are reformers" is that the attribute of the reformers has been purified for them and has been freed from any blemish that would detract from it in any aspect of corruption. And "Ala" is composed of the interrogative hamza and the negation particle, to give the meaning of alerting to the truth of what follows it. When the interrogative enters upon the negation, it provides affirmation, as in His saying: "Is that not capable?" And because it is in this position of affirmation, the sentence that follows it rarely occurs except prefaced by something that is received as an oath. And its sister, which is "Amma," is from the preliminaries of the oath and its beginnings: "Amma, and the One who knows the unseen is none but Him."

"Amma, and the One who knows the unseen is none but Him... and revives the white bones while they are decayed.

I had chosen the villages, concealing my hunger... fearing that it would be said that I am mean.

And I am indeed shy of my right hand, and between it... and my mouth is the darkness of the deep night."

This is from Hatim al-Ta'i. The origin of "Amma" is composed of the interrogative hamza and what remains, thus it became a particle for opening the oath and affirming the speech, and I swear by the One who knows the unseen and the thoughts, which is Allah, the Exalted, because the answer to the oath is of this kind. And mentioning the white bones dispels the illusion that they are the Meccan ones by flesh or a metaphor for their long duration without it, as it becomes dry with its laying due to the dryness of its blood while it is decayed and worn out. And the equality of masculine and feminine in "fa'il" meaning "doer" as here is rare, while the common is in that which means "object."

I had chosen the villages: meaning gathering the guests and honoring them. And it is permissible to narrate: "I choose the villages" with the letter 'j' and 'z' and the 'q' being pronounced: describing himself with chastity. And it is narrated: "I choose the pain of the heart from hunger and the like while I am chaste." And in the first case, the meaning is: while I am hungry, "qati al-hasha" means the stomach and intestines, a metaphor for that. And the use of "ta'" in this meaning has become so common that it was said of it: "ta' yati" like "ra'di yarda" meaning "to be hungry," thus he is "tayyan" like "joo'an" in weight and meaning.

"Muhadhara": meaning cautious of what people say that he is mean and not generous. And he was shy to extend his hand to food to his mouth, even though the night was very dark, preventing him from seeing it. And "al-bahim" is that in which things have become unclear due to its darkness.

For Abu Sakhr Abdullah bin Salmi al-Hudhali. And "Amma" is an introductory and preliminary word for the oath. The "wa" after it is for swearing: that is, by the One who truly made cry and laugh, or by the One who pleased and harmed, which is a metaphor and more suitable for the context. And the one who commanded him: that is, his decree is the effective decree, or the one who commands when He intends something, the command: that is, His saying "Be." It is narrated "Amr" without the lam: that is, a great command. Truly, you have made me the answer to the oath: that is, you have made me envy the wild animals for seeing me at peace with them, that is, the wild animals because it is in the meaning of the group. They are not frightened by it, that is, it does not scare them, because fear causes fright - with a damma - which is the heart. And "dhara'a" means to be afraid, as in "ta'ab": to fear. And "dhara'tuhu" means I frightened him, as in "darabtu-hu": I struck him. That is, it does not frighten them with fright. It may be intended by "dhara" the frightening matter. And it is narrated: "They are not frightened by the fleeing": that is, neither of them flees from the other, so one frightens the other by that.

I said: Because of their ignorance and their neglect of reflection and fairness to themselves, they believed that what they were in was the truth and that anything else was falsehood. Whoever rides the back of falsehood is foolish. This is because they were in a position of leadership and wealth among their people, while most of the believers were poor, and among them were freed slaves like Suhayb, Bilal, and Khabbab. They called them foolish to belittle their status. Or they meant Abdullah ibn Salam and his followers, and their separation from their religion and what they had from their Islam and the weakening of their resolve. They said this in a manner of bravado to protect themselves from being ridiculed, while knowing that they were far from foolishness. Foolishness is a lack of intellect and a lightness of forbearance. If you say: Why did this verse specify: (they do not know), while the one before it specified: (they do not feel)? I say: Because the matter of religion and realizing that the believers are upon the truth while they are upon falsehood requires reflection and reasoning until the observer acquires knowledge.

As for hypocrisy and what it entails of oppression leading to discord and corruption in the land, it is a worldly matter based on customs, known among people, especially among the Arabs in their ignorance and what existed among them of rivalry, enmity, and conflict. It is like something tangible and visible. And because foolishness has been mentioned, which is ignorance, mentioning knowledge alongside it is better in contrast. The context of this verse is different from what was mentioned at the beginning of the story of the hypocrites; it is not a repetition, because that one is in clarifying their doctrine and translating their hypocrisy, while this one is in clarifying what they were doing with the believers of denying them, mocking them, and meeting them with the faces of the sincere and misleading them that they were with them. When they separated from them to the corners of their religion, they believed what was in their hearts. It has been narrated that Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his companions went out one day and were met by a group of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. Abdullah said: Look how I turn these fools away from you. He took the hand of Abu Bakr and said: Welcome to the truthful one, the leader of Banu Taym, and the elder of Islam, the second of the Messenger of Allah in the cave, who gave his life and wealth for the Messenger of Allah. Then he took the hand of Umar and said: Welcome to the leader of Banu Adi, the strong one in the religion of Allah, who gave his life and wealth for the Messenger of Allah. Then he took the hand of Ali and said: Welcome to the cousin of the Messenger of Allah and his son-in-law, the leader of Banu Hashim, except for the Messenger of Allah. Then they parted, and he said to his companions: How did you see me act? They praised him well, and the verse was revealed.

It is said that you met him if you approached him closely. And it is a synonym for meeting and encountering. Abu Hanifa read: And when they meet.

And I secluded myself with so-and-so, if I was alone with him. It is permissible that it is from 'khala' meaning: he passed, and 'khalaak' is blame, meaning he passed by you. From it: the past generations. And from 'khala' with him, if I mocked him. It is from your saying: So-and-so secluded himself with the honor of so-and-so to play with it. Its meaning is: And when they ended the mockery of the believers to their devils and spoke to them about it. Just as you say: I commend so-and-so to you, and I blame him to you. Their devils are those who resemble the devils in their rebellion. Sibawayh has made the 'n' of the devil in one place in his book original, and in another place added. The evidence for its originality is their saying: 'tashaytan', and its derivation is from 'shatana' if he is far due to his distance from righteousness and good. And from 'shata' if it is invalidated if you made its 'n' added. And among its names is falsehood.

Indeed, We are with you. We are your companions and supporters in your religion. If you say: Why did they address the believers with the verbal sentence, and their devils with the nominal sentence confirmed by 'that'? [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "If you say, why did they address the believers with the verbal sentence... etc.?" Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, based this explanation on the fact that the nominal sentence is more affirming than the verbal one, especially confirmed by 'that', while it has also been reported that the faith of the sincere believers was mentioned with the verbal sentence as in His saying: (Our Lord, we have believed in what You have revealed and we have followed the Messenger). Overall, Al-Zamakhshari, may Allah have mercy on him, excelled in his explanation as he wished and summarized what he intended.] I say: What they addressed the believers with is not worthy of the strongest and most confirmed speech, because they are claiming the occurrence of faith from them and its emergence from them, not claiming that they are unique in faith without any doubt in it. This is either because their own selves do not support them in it, as they have no beliefs that motivate and drive them, and thus every saying that does not arise from generosity and sincere desire and conviction. Or because it would not be accepted from them if they said it in a manner of confirmation and exaggeration. How could they say it and hope for its acceptance while they are among the emigrants and the helpers, who are likened to them in the Torah and the Gospel? Do you not see how Allah narrates the saying of the believers: (Our Lord, indeed we have believed)? As for addressing their brothers, they are in what they informed about themselves of steadfastness in Judaism and their commitment to the belief in disbelief, and far from slipping away from it with sincere desire and abundant energy and comfort in speaking it. What they said of that is accepted from them and received from them, so it was a presumption for confirmation and a means for affirmation. If you say: How does His saying: 'Indeed, we are mockers' relate to His saying: (Indeed, We are with you)? I say: It is an affirmation of it, because His saying: (Indeed, We are with you) means steadfastness in Judaism. And His saying: (Indeed, we are mockers) is a rejection of Islam and a push against it from them, because the mocker of something that he belittles denies it and pushes against it as he considers it significant, and pushing against the opposite of something is an affirmation of its steadfastness or a replacement for it, because whoever belittles Islam has magnified disbelief. Or it is an initiation, as if they objected to them when they said to them: (Indeed, We are with you), so they said: What is the matter with you if it is true that you are with us agreeing with the people of Islam? They said: (Indeed, we are mockers). Mockery is ridicule and belittlement, and the root of the matter is lightness - from mockery, which is quick death - and mocked means to die in place. From some Arabs: I walked and overcame, so I thought I would mock on my place. And his she-camel mocks him: meaning it hastens and lightens. If you say: Mockery against Allah, the Exalted, is not permissible, because He is above all that is vile, and ridicule is a form of disgrace and ignorance. Do you not see His saying: (They said: Do you take us in mockery? He said: I seek refuge with Allah from being among the ignorant)? What is the meaning of His mockery of them? I say: Its meaning is to bring humiliation and disgrace upon them, because the mocker aims at what he targets, which is to seek lightness and contempt from whom he mocks, and to impose humiliation and disgrace upon him, and the derivation as we mentioned is evidence for that. Mockery has become abundant in the words of Allah, the Exalted, about the disbelievers. The intended meaning is to belittle their status and to scorn their affair, and to indicate that their doctrines are truly deserving of mockery and laughter. It may also be intended as mentioned in: (They deceive) that they are subjected to the rulings of Muslims in appearance, while they harbor what is intended for them. It is said: The punishment for mockery is named as such, as in His saying: (And the recompense for an evil deed is an evil deed like it), (So whoever attacks you, attack him). If you say: How does His saying: (Allah mocks them) begin without being connected to the preceding speech? [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "If you say: How does His saying: Allah mocks them begin without being connected... etc.?"

Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: If someone says: Can this meaning not be derived from the conjunction? It is said to him: If it had been a conjunction, it would have indicated that the entire purpose is the gathering of the content of both sentences and the disregard for this meaning that is unique to the resumption. I say: It is a resumption of utmost eloquence and grandeur. In it, Allah, glorified and exalted is He, is the one who mocks them with the most profound mockery, which their mockery towards Him does not compare to, nor is it given any heed in response, due to what He brings upon them of punishment and what befalls them of humiliation and disgrace. In it, Allah is the one who takes on the mockery of them in vengeance for the believers, and He does not require the believers to oppose them with a mockery like it. If you say: Why was it not said Allah mocks them to be in accordance with His saying: (Indeed, we are mocking)? [Mahamoud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'If you say: Why was it not said Allah mocks them ... etc.?'] Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: And for this reason, there is a distinction between the action and the name. The saying of Allah, glorified and exalted is He: (Indeed, We have made the mountains with him glorifying at evening and sunrise, and the birds gathered) is because the glorification is a repeated and renewed occurrence little by little, while the gathering of the birds with him is a constant matter. The glorification is mentioned in the form of action, and the gathering in the form of a name. More clarification of this will come, if Allah, glorified and exalted is He, wills. I say: Because (mocks) indicates the occurrence of mockery and its renewal time after time, and thus were Allah's punishments upon them and the calamities that descended upon them. (Do they not see that they are tried every year once or twice?) And they were not free at most times from the tearing of veils and the revealing of secrets, and the descent concerning them and the feeling of caution that it may descend upon them. (The hypocrites fear that a surah may be revealed to them informing them of what is in their hearts.) (Say: Mock, indeed Allah will bring forth what you fear.) And He extends them in their transgression as the army is extended and reinforced when it is increased and joined with what strengthens and increases it. Likewise, the ink pen is extended and reinforced: it is increased with what makes it suitable. And I extended the lamps and the land: if I improved them with oil and fertilizer. And the devil extends him in error and reinforces him: if he connects him with whispers until his error increases and he becomes more entrenched in it. If you say: Why do you claim that it is from the extension and not from the extension in lifespan, delay, and respite? I say: A sufficient proof that it is from the extension and not from the extension is the reading of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Muhaisn: (And He extends them), and the reading of Nafi: (And their brothers extend them) on the basis that what means to delay him is indeed an extension for him with the preposition 'lam' like 'He delayed for him.' If you say: How could Allah grant them an extension in transgression, which is an action of the devils? Do you not see His saying: (And their brothers extend them in error)? [Mahamoud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'If you say: How could Allah grant them an extension in transgression ... etc.?'] Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: What prevents Him from allowing them to remain in their apparent state and keeping them in their position is only that it is pure monotheism and absolute truth, and the Qadarites are from monotheism at various stages. I say: Either it is to be understood that when Allah prevented them from His graces that He grants to the believers, and forsook them due to their disbelief and insistence upon it, their hearts remained with an increasing layer of rust and darkness in them, while the hearts of the believers increased in light and clarity, so this increase is called an extension. It is attributed to Allah, glorified and exalted is He, because it is a consequence of His action upon them due to their disbelief. Or it is based on the prevention of compulsion and coercion, or it is based on attributing the action of the devil to Allah because of His enabling and allowing him and leaving him free to mislead His servants. If you say: What led them to interpret the extension in transgression as delay while the subject of language, as you mentioned, does not allow for it? I say: They were drawn to that by the fear of attributing to Allah what they attributed to the devils, but the correct meaning is what corresponds with the wording and is supported by its correctness; otherwise, it would be like the goat from the ostrich.

And it is the right of the interpreter of the Book of Allah, the Glorious, and His miraculous words, to ensure that the structure remains beautiful and the eloquence remains complete, and that what has been challenged is free from any defect. If he does not take care of the conditions of the language, then he is neglecting the structure and eloquence at various stages. What we have said is supported by the saying of Al-Hasan in his interpretation: 'In their misguidance, they persist,' and that these are of the nature of instinct. And 'tyranny' is the excess in disbelief and exceeding the limits in arrogance.

And Zayd ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, read: '(in their tyranny)' with a kasrah, and both are valid forms, like 'laqiyan' and 'laqiyan,' and 'ghaniyan' and 'ghaniyan.' If you say: What is the point of attributing it to them? [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'If you say: What is the point of attributing tyranny to them... etc.? Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Every action that comes from a servant by choice has two considerations: If you look at its existence and occurrence and what it is in terms of specification, attribute that to the power of Allah alone and His will, with no partner. And if you look at its distinction from the necessary coercion, attribute it in this regard to the servant, which is the attribution expressed by Shari'ah as 'earning' in similar statements of Allah, the Exalted: '(So by what your hands have earned).' This is also realized if you consider the two movements, the necessary tremor, for example, and the voluntary one; you will certainly distinguish between them by that attribution. So, if the multiplicity of consideration is established, then their persistence in tyranny is created by Allah, the Exalted, so He attributed it to Him. And in terms of it being an occurrence from them by choice, expressed as earning, He attributed it to them. So, branch off from the principles of the Sunnah with the good fruits of your branches in Paradise, not as the Qadarites branch off, for they harm only themselves. May Allah guide us to the truth and support us with success.]

I say: In it is that tyranny and persistence in misguidance are from what their own selves have committed and what their hands have wrought, and that Allah is free from it, refuting the belief of the disbelievers who say: 'If Allah had willed, we would not have associated partners,' and negating the delusion of those who might imagine [The phrase 'and negating the delusion of those who might imagine...' refers to the refutation of the Ahl al-Sunnah who say: 'Indeed, Allah, the Exalted, is the true doer of good and evil.' And it supports the Mu'tazila who say that He, the Exalted, does not do evil nor desires it (peace be upon Him)] when attributing the persistence to His essence. If tyranny were not attributed to them, it would remove the ambiguity and uproot it and push back against the one who deviates in His attributes. The proof of that is that when the persistence was attributed to the devils, He mentioned misguidance without restricting it by attribution in His saying: '(And their brothers extend to them in misguidance).'

And 'blindness' is like 'blindness,' except that blindness is general in sight and perception, while 'blindness' is specific to perception, which is confusion and hesitation, not knowing where to turn. And from it is His saying: 'with the ignorant, the blind,' meaning those who have no opinion or knowledge of the paths. And he traversed a blind land: one without landmarks. [The phrase 'And he traversed a blind land' refers to their saying: 'He traversed... etc.'] And the meaning of buying misguidance with guidance is choosing it over it and replacing it with it, in a metaphorical sense, because buying involves giving a substitute and taking another. [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'Buying requires giving a price... etc. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: And from this is the prohibition of Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, from buying one of two slaughtered animals that the buyer chooses from them, because he is considered to be choosing each one of them, then selling it for the other, which brings him into usury, which is what the later scholars of his companions express as: 'Whoever has the ability to own, is he considered an owner or not?' And they might say: 'Whoever is given a choice between two things is considered to have transitioned according to one of the two opinions.'] And from it:

'I took with the hair a head that is sparse... and with the prominent incisors, the clear ones.

And with the long life, a life that is strong... as the Muslim bought when he converted.' [The term 'the hair' refers to abundant hair, and the 'ba' is for substitution, and 'sparse' is like 'trembling' so it is sparse, meaning little hair. And it is said of the place that has no vegetation. The incisors are the front teeth. And the meaning is the whole mouth. And 'the clear ones' refers to the landmarks of the teeth. And 'the strong one' refers to...]

The short one. And 'wa-ashtara' means 'he exchanged'. The intended meaning is that he took an old, ugly woman in exchange for a young, beautiful woman. It has been narrated that Jubaylah ibn al-Ayham had come to Mecca and performed Tawaf around the Kaaba. A man stepped on his garment, so he slapped him. He complained to Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, who ruled for retaliation against Jubaylah. He requested a delay until the next day and fled at night to the Romans. He converted to Christianity after Islam, then regretted what he had done, so he became an example.

And from Wahb: Allah, the Exalted, said in what He criticizes the Children of Israel: "You seek knowledge for other than religion, and you learn for other than action, and you buy the worldly life with the deeds of the Hereafter." If you say: How did they buy misguidance with guidance when they were not upon guidance? I say: They made it as if they had control over it and turned away from it, as if it were in their hands. If they abandon it for misguidance, they have neglected it and exchanged it for it. And because the one who is guided is the fitrah of Allah upon which He created people. So whoever goes astray has exchanged what is contrary to the fitrah, and misguidance is to stray from the truth and lose guidance. It is said: He lost his home, and 'dalriss' lost its burrow. The term 'dalriss' refers to the offspring of a mouse and a jerboa and similar creatures. In the proverb, 'He lost his dalriss' means his burrow. It is borrowed to refer to straying from the truth in religion. And profit is the excess over the capital, and for this reason it is called:

'ash-shaf', from the saying: 'ashfa' some of his children over others', meaning he preferred them. And for this reason, it is called 'shaf'. And trade is the craft of the trader, which is one who buys and sells for profit. A trading she-camel is as if it is selling itself due to its beauty and fatness. Ibn Abi 'Abla read 'tijaratihim'. If you say: How is loss attributed to trade when it belongs to its owners? I say: It is a figurative attribution, meaning that the action is attributed to something that is associated with what truly belongs to it, just as trade is associated with the buyers. If you say: Is it correct to say: Your slave made a profit and your female slave lost, in the figurative attribution? I say: Yes, if the situation indicates it. Likewise, the condition for the correctness of:

'I saw a lion', when you mean the brave, if the situation does not indicate it, it would not be correct. If you say: Suppose that the purchase of misguidance with guidance occurred figuratively in the meaning of exchange, what is the meaning of mentioning profit and trade? It is as if there is a real transaction. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This type is close to the completion that the people of the craft of eloquence represent with the saying of al-Khansa:

'And indeed, Sakhr is to be followed by the guides ... as if he is a flame in his head.'

When she compared him in guidance to the elevated knowledge, she followed that with something that suits it and affirms it. She was not satisfied with the appearance of elevation until she added to that another appearance by the flame in his head.

This is from the exquisite craft that reaches the highest peak with metaphor, which is that a word is presented in the manner of metaphor, then it is followed by forms and companions. When they follow one another, you will not see a more beautiful speech than this in its eloquence and more abundant in water and fragrance. This is the refined metaphor. This is similar to the Arabs' saying about the dull: 'As if his ears are the heart of a fool', and they made it like a donkey, then they refined that to affirm the dullness, claiming for his heart two ears, and they attributed to them foolishness, to represent dullness in a way that associates it with the dullness of a donkey through direct observation. Similarly, when I saw the eagle, the son of Da'iya was exalted ... and it nested in its two dens, my heart stirred for him.

He compared gray hair to the eagle by virtue of its whiteness, and borrowed it for clarity. He compared youth to the raven - which is the son of Da'iya - by virtue of its blackness as well. And 'izzah' means to overpower him, just as 'nasr' means to defeat him. Nesting in the two dens is a refinement for the two metaphors, and they refer to the head and the beard. It is possible that the entire structure is a figurative representation. He says: When I saw gray hair overpower youth and take its place, my heart stirred for it and was agitated, so the heart is a metaphor. It is narrated: 'My soul stirred for him.'

So what is the mother of the two sides, even if she leads ... with knowledge of the morals of the noble ones.

When the devil enters her back ... we extract him with the strong ropes.

[The woman leading and guiding: it is a good way to prevent her with her consent. Leading and guiding also means to be charming and to take shape. The name is dal, dalah, and dalal. It is said to be close to the meaning of guidance. From it: they used to look at the guidance of Umar and his leading and imitate him. And denying her knowledge of the morals of the noble ones is a metaphor for her bad character. It is narrated: by saying the morals of the noble ones, meaning she is not concerned or attentive to them, or she does not act upon them while the wealth is one. The term 'qasi' refers to the jerboa entering its burrow, which is its hole. 'Tanfaq' means to exit from it, which is the other end of the hole. The hunter extracts it from there; for the burrow has two entrances, if the hunter approaches from the first, it exits from the second. Thus, the act of 'qasi' is borrowed for the devil entering her back, and 'tanfaq' is borrowed for extracting him from it in a figurative manner, and the second reinforces the first and vice versa. The term 'hubl' is the plural of 'habl', like 'kutub' is the plural of 'kitab'. 'Tuwam' refers to the doubled rope, and its plural is 'tuwam', and 'tuwam' is like 'ghurab'. That is, with the doubled, twisted rope, and according to the narration of the single rope, it implies that 'tuwam' is not a plural but a collective noun treated as singular, meaning with the strong rope because it is made of twisted ropes. This reinforces the idea of 'tanfaq', and the reinforcement of the reinforcement is also a reinforcement for 'qasi', and the ropes are suitable for 'tanfaq' in the context of hunting. It is permissible to liken the devil to the jerboa, for when we want to catch it from one side, it escapes from the other side until we catch it with the strongest trick, making it a metaphor, and 'qasi' and 'tanfaq' with the rope are imaginative. All of this is placed in her back because foolishness is usually attributed to it, or because the devil approaches her from where she does not feel, as if he is from behind her. Then this speech is a metaphor or representation of the intended meaning, which is that if she has bad character, we appease her with cunning and gentleness.]

That is, if the devil enters her back, we extract him from his exits with the strong doubled rope. He means: if she becomes angry and has bad character, we strive to remove her anger and to remove what is bad from her character. He borrowed 'qasi' first, then added 'tanfaq', then the strong rope. Likewise, when He mentioned the purchase, He followed it with what is similar and complementary, which completes and perfects by its addition, representing their loss and depicting its reality. If you say: What is the meaning of His saying (So their trade did not profit them, nor were they guided)? I say: Its meaning is that what traders seek in their transactions are two things: the safety of the capital and profit. And these have lost both requests together, because the essence of what they have was guidance, so nothing remains for them with misguidance. And when nothing remains in their hands except misguidance, they are not described as having achieved profit. Even if they obtained what they obtained from worldly gains, for the misguided one is a loser and doomed, and it is not said of one whose capital is not safe: he has profited, and they were not guided to the paths of trade as the knowledgeable traders are who know what brings profit and what brings loss.