Then Allah, glorified and exalted is He, reiterated concerning them with another parable to reveal their state after a revelation, and to clarify after a clarification. Just as it is necessary for an eloquent speaker in instances of brevity and conciseness to summarize and be succinct, it is likewise obligatory for him in cases of detail and fullness to elaborate and satisfy. Al-Jahiz recited: "They inspire with long speeches at times... and at times, the inspiration of the glances out of fear of the watchers." [[Al-Jahiz recited this. He narrated 'they throw' and borrowed the term throwing to mean bringing forth words from the mouth abundantly in a manner of explicitness.

It is said: he inspired him, and to him was an inspiration, and he conveyed to him inspiration: if he conveyed to him the words, or indicated to him with it, and inspired him with it. Thus, inspiration is the source of wahi or the name of the source of awha, and al-lahz: the indication with the corner of the eye to the right or left. The one who glances is a description by origin, and it is the name for the corner of the eye. Therefore, it is pluralized to al-lawahidh, and the wahi is attributed to it because it is a tool. It is possible that it is pluralized from lahz, meaning they speak with long speeches at times of safety, and inspire with glances at other times, due to their fear of the watchers. Thus, for every situation, they have a saying.]]

Among the reiterated parables in the revelation is His saying: "And the blind is not equal to the seeing, nor the darknesses to the light, nor the shade to the heat, and the living is not equal to the dead." And do you not see how Dhū al-Rumma crafted in his poem?:

"Is that a wild donkey I see in the distance... ............... ...

Is that a bull with its legs stained from the grass... .............." [[Is that a wild donkey I see in the distance... with a cheek that has become lively and youthful?

Is that a bull with its legs stained from the grass... the father of thirty who has turned back?

Dhū al-Rumma describes his she-camel, first comparing it to a wild donkey, then he said: Is that donkey that resembles my she-camel or is it a wild donkey? And 'tamash' with the movement-:

The color is dispersed. And 'kaḥdar': color is dispersed. And 'al-washī': a color that differs from the rest of the thing. And 'al-akraʿ': the plural of 'kiraʿ' which is the leg, and 'al-masfaʿ': the black one- from 'as-safʿa'- which is the blackness. And 'an-nāshīṭ': one who comes from one land to another. And 'ash-shabb': like 'kaḥdar' also- the young of the wild cattle. Then he said: Is that a bull that resembles it, or is it a 'khāḍib'? And it is the male ostrich whose legs have turned red or yellow from eating the spring grass. And 'as-sayy': the level of the land, and the name of a specific place. And 'al-maraṭ': a source or a name for a place contained within a wider one. And 'munqalib': returning from the pasture to its thirty offspring. It is the fastest it can be, and it is likewise swift in movement.

And 'akraʿ' is the doer by the circumstance or the doer of 'tamash'. And 'marʿatuh': its doer by the circumstance, or it is a subject and the circumstance is its predicate.]] ....

If you say: The hypocrite was likened in the first parable to one who kindles a fire, and his display of faith is by the light, and his benefit ceases with the extinguishing of the fire, what then is likened in the second parable to the rain, to the darknesses, to the thunder, to the lightning, and to the bolts of lightning? I would say: One might say: Islam is likened to the rain, for the hearts come to life by it as the earth does with rain. And what is related to it is the likening of the disbelievers to the darknesses. And what is in it of promise and warning is likened to the thunder and lightning. And what befalls the disbelievers of fright and calamities and trials from the people of Islam is likened to the bolts of lightning. And the meaning is: Or is it like those who have rain? And the intended meaning is like a people whom the sky has taken on this description, so they encountered from it what they encountered. If you say: This is a comparison of things to things, so where are the mentioned comparisons? And why did he not clarify it as in His saying: "And the blind is not equal to the seeing, nor those who believe and do righteous deeds to the evildoers," and in the saying of Imru' al-Qais:

As if the hearts of the birds are both moist and dry... at the nest of the eagle, the jujube and the dry husk? [[This is by Imru' al-Qais describing the eagle as it eats the young birds except for their hearts, which is why they are abundant with it. He describes himself as brave, as he has reached the sight of that. He says: As if the hearts of the birds, while some are moist and some are dry, are at the nest of the eagle - meaning its dwelling -: the jujube, which is a moist red fruit, refers to the moist part. And the husk: the dry, poor quality of the rotten, ruined dates, refers to the dry part. Thus, there is a structured connection and contrast between the moist and the dry.

It is permissible that 'moist and dry' is an apposition to 'the hearts of the birds', meaning that the moist and dry among them are: the jujube and the husk. An apposition does not require a pronoun referring back to the noun it is replacing, although it is preferable.]]

I said: Just as this has come explicitly, it has also come implicitly in the manner of metaphor, as in His saying:

(And the two seas are not alike; this one is fresh, sweet, and pleasant to drink, while that one is salty and bitter), (Allah sets forth the example of a man with partners who quarrel and a man who is at peace with a man). The correct view held by the scholars of rhetoric is that both examples are part of the compound metaphors rather than the separate ones. One does not need to take one thing and find a similarity for it; this is the eloquent speech and the solid discourse. Its explanation is that the Arabs take things individually, isolating some from others, without one being dependent on the other, and they liken them to their counterparts, as Imru' al-Qais did and as is found in the Qur'an. They liken a situation resulting from a collection of things that have come together and adhered until they became one thing, to another similar situation, as in His saying: (The example of those who were burdened with the Torah). The aim is to liken the state of the Jews in their ignorance of what they have with them of the Torah and its clear signs, to the state of the donkey in its ignorance of the books of wisdom it carries, and both states are equal in his view regarding the burden of the books of wisdom and the burden of other loads, feeling nothing of it except what passes through its back in toil and fatigue. And as in His saying: (And set forth for them the example of the worldly life like water We sent down from the sky), the intended meaning is the brevity of the worldly life’s bloom, like the brevity of the green grass. As for likening individuals to individuals that are not connected to one another and do not become one thing, that is not the case. Thus, when he described the hypocrites' falling into their misguidance and the confusion and astonishment they experienced, their bewilderment and the severity of the matter upon them were likened to the one who has extinguished his fire after igniting it in the darkness of the night, and likewise to one who is caught by the sky in a dark night with thunder and lightning and fear of the lightning strikes. If you say: What you estimated in the separate metaphor from the omission of the added phrase, as in your saying 'or like the example of those with a rainstorm', do you estimate a similar thing in the compound metaphor? I say: Were it not for the need for the reference in His saying: (They put their fingers in their ears), which refers back to it, I would have been sufficient without estimating it because I consider the quality derived from the totality of the speech, so it does not matter to me whether the first letter of the metaphor is singular and whether it can be compared or not. Do you not see His saying: (Indeed, the example of the worldly life), how the water is the 'kaaf', and the aim is not to liken the world to water or to any other singular thing that can be forced into estimation. Among the clear examples of this is the saying of Labid:

And people are nothing but like the houses and their inhabitants... on the day they settled in them and in the morning they are barren. [[He did not intend to liken people to the houses themselves, but rather to liken their state with the world to the state of the houses with their inhabitants. And his saying:

And "its people therein" is a phrase indicating a state. And "the day of its sweetness" is in the accusative case due to a deleted governing word before it. And "they became barren" means it is barren in the morning, the plural of balqa: meaning empty and desolate. It is common to use "the morning" like "the hand," so its waw appears here according to the original. He expressed it with "the morning" and intended by it the near time, as it is said, "I will do it tomorrow." The meaning is after a few days, as the commonality is the quickness of decay and disappearance after joy and freshness. You may consider it as a comparison of the singular to the singular by the commonality that people have souls in it, so it is radiant and beautiful, then it is taken from them and becomes empty and desolate like a house that is inhabited by its people and then becomes a ruin. This is based on the elevation of its people. As for if it is in the genitive case, connected to the houses, the first interpretation is required, and "therein" would be related to a deleted state of its people. The bā' means "in" in both cases.

He did not compare people to the houses, but rather compared their existence in this world and the quickness of their disappearance and extinction, to the arrival of the people of the houses in it and the imminent departure from it, leaving it empty and desolate. If you say: which of the two comparisons is more eloquent? I say: the second, because it is more indicative of extreme bewilderment and the severity of the matter and its horror, and for this reason, it was delayed. They gradually progress in this from the lighter to the heavier. If you say: why did he connect one comparison to the other with a particle of doubt? I say:

Or in its origin to equal two things or more in doubt, then it was expanded in meaning and borrowed for equality in non-doubt, as in your saying: "I sat with al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin," meaning that they are equal in desirability to sit with them. From this is Allah's saying: (And do not obey any of them who is a sinner or ungrateful), meaning the sinner and the ungrateful are equal in the obligation to disobey them. Likewise, His saying: (or like a downpour) means that the manner of the hypocrites' story is similar to the manner of these two stories, and that the two stories are equal in the independence of each one of them in the aspect of comparison. So whichever you compare it to, you are correct, and if you compare it to both of them, it is the same. And the downpour: the rain that pours down, meaning it descends and falls.

And the cloud is also called a downpour. Al-Shamakh said:

"And the dark cloud, true to the thunder, is a downpour."

It is said: he distanced it, or he struck its side. And "it became desolate": it was erased and perished, and the wind erased it: it destroyed it and obliterated it. And the well - with a dhamma - is the well that is in a place with abundant pasture. And the jadd: the solid land, opposite of the soft. And the aajdad is a plural for the first or the second. And the jadd: the winding paths of sand. It is possible that the aajdad is also its plural, but based on the narration "a garden" in the accusative and the addition to the pronoun. And the aajdad in the nominative. And the naqba - like the shaab - is the secure path in the mountain. And naqba the place means it became a naqba. Likewise, it became a shaab, meaning it became a shaab.

And it is implied that it is with the eye replacing the qaf, meaning it becomes desolate, from the naqba which is the desolations. And the ayah is one sign, meaning signs and traces.

And the difference of the winds is compared to the weaving in a methodical manner. And the dark: black, which is an attribute of the cloud.

And the near: close. And "daaj" and "the dark" are the darkened. And the downpour: much rain. And the question is one of amazement. He says:

"Are you amazed by our distancing from the new trace of the house of Su'ad? Or are you amazed by our passing by the side of the new trace of Su'ad, whose effects have perished and become wide paths? And what erased its trace is the difference of the winds and the succession of the rains. So 'it became desolate' is a resumption of clarification. And he compared the cloud to a man who is true to his promise in a metaphorical manner. And truthfulness and promise are figurative. And the thunder is narrated with a ra, likening its thunder to truthful news.

And downpour: infa'il from sab, meaning it descends inclined to one side, like sayyid from sad, meaning he leads. And the indefiniteness of downpour is because a type of rain is intended that is severe and overwhelming, just as fire was made indefinite in the first comparison.

And it is recited: like a downpour, and the downpour is more eloquent. And the sky: this for the canopy. And from al-Hasan: it is a wave that is restrained.

If you say: His saying: (FROM THE SKY) what is the benefit of mentioning it? And the rain can only come from the sky. I say:

The benefit in it is that he came with the sky defined, thus negating that it could descend from a sky, meaning from a single horizon among the other horizons. Because every horizon of its horizons is a sky, just as every layer of layers is a sky in His saying: (AND HE REVEALED IN EVERY SKY ITS COMMAND). The evidence for this is His saying:

And FROM A DISTANCE OF LAND BETWEEN US AND A SKY [[Oh, how I long for her when I remember her... And from a distance of land between us and a sky.

"Oh" with emphasis, with an open waw and a broken one is based on stillness. It has been narrated with a closed hamzah and a still waw. And there is a third language by replacing the waw with a long alif, both based on the broken form: a name of action for lamentation. And the word 'ma' is extra after 'idha' to indicate the generality of times. He says: I lament from remembering the beloved whenever I remember her, and from what is between us of a piece of land and a piece of sky that faces that piece. Thus, he used land and sky to indicate that, but it is established among them that the tanween only indicates part of individuals, not parts of it. So what has been mentioned can only be completed by claiming that the sky is applied to some of that canopy, and the land to some of this expanse, so that the part is an individual from the individuals, not a part of the parts. And mentioning the sky indicates the extent of the distance in the land, because it appears in it before its appearance in the sky. And it is possible that the intention is to liken the distance between them to the distance between the sky and the land.

Thus, the tanween is for exaggeration and glorification.]

And the meaning is that it is a dense cloud covering the horizons of the sky, as it came with rain. And in it are exaggerations from the aspect of composition, construction, and indefiniteness. This is supported by making it covering. And in it, the clouds descend from the sky and take their water from it, not as claimed by those who say they take it from the sea. This is supported by His saying: (AND HE SENDS DOWN FROM THE SKY MOUNTAINS IN IT OF HAIL).

If you say: What caused the darkness to rise? I say: By the circumstance based on agreement for relying on a described thing. And the thunder: the sound that is heard from the clouds, as if the bodies of the clouds tremble and shake when the wind strikes them, thus producing a sound from the trembling. And the lightning that flashes from the clouds, from the word 'barq' meaning to shine. If you say: The rain has been made a place for the darkness, so it must refer to either the clouds or the rain, which one is intended and what are its darknesses? I say: As for the darkness of the clouds, if it is a dense covering, then its darkness and covering are combined with the darkness of the night. And as for the darkness of the rain, it is the darkness of its density and intertwining due to the continuous drops, and the darkness of its overshadowing with the darkness of the night. If you say: How can the rain be a place for lightning and thunder when their place is the clouds? I say: If they are above it and at its source and intertwined in general, then they are in it.

Do you not see that you say: So-and-so is in the city, and he is not from it except in a space occupied by his body? If you say: Why did he not gather thunder and lightning taking the more eloquent path like the saying of Al-Buhturi:

O cloud, wrapped in its coolness... it struts between its lightnings and thunders [[O cloud, wrapped in its coolness... it struts between its lightnings and thunders.

If you wish, return to the land and you will find a return... and you settled between its 'Aqiq' and its 'Zarud.'

To be generous in a quarter with a bend in the path... a barren place replaced the companionship of the beloved with wildness.]]

Al-Buhturi addresses the clouds because he likens their density and accumulation to a person wrapped in his garments. And affirming the wrapping with coolness and strutting is a figurative expression, and based on that is the affirmation of will and the gathering of lightning and thunder even though they are a source to indicate abundance and multiple occurrences. 'Aqiq' and 'Zarud' are specific places. And the bend - on the pattern of the name of the action - is the place where the traveler turns right and left. And 'Al-Luwa' is the winding sand. And 'Al-Ghayd' is the soft and beautiful, its feminine is 'Ghayda,' and 'Ghayd' - like 'Bayd' - is its plural. And 'Al-Jood' is the rains.

He seeks from the cloud obstructing in the horizon to rain in the quarter of the beloved in the bent place, then he described the quarter as barren with no vegetation in it, and it has become lonely with wild animals replacing the companionship of the beloved.

And as it was said, 'darknesses?' I said: There are two meanings: one is that the two eyes are intended, but since they are originally two sources - it is said: 'The sky thundered with thunder and flashed with lightning' - the ruling of their origin was taken into account by leaving their plural form, even if the meaning of the plural is intended. The second is that the events are intended, as if it were said: 'And the thundering and the flashing.' These things came as singulars because the intention is types of them, as if it were said: 'In it are dark, gloomy darknesses, and a crashing thunder, and a flashing lightning.' The return of the pronoun in 'they make' to the companions of the cloud is permissible, even though it is omitted, as the cloud stands in its place, as he said: 'Or are they saying?' Because the omitted remains with its meaning even if its wording is dropped. Do you not see how Hassan relied on the permanence of its meaning in his saying: 'They are given to drink from the water of Al-Baris upon them... the coolness that mixes with the pure wine.' [May Allah be pleased with the group who spent time with them... one day in Jalk in the first time. They are given to drink from the water of Al-Baris upon them... the coolness that mixes with the pure wine. For Hassan ibn Thabit mentions the days of the Ghassanian kings of Sham. And the group: the community with one opinion. And Jalk - with emphasis - is a foreign name for a town. 'And in the time' is related to an omitted description for the day, which is the occasion for the gathering, which is the conversation over drinks. Al-Baris is the name of a valley. It is narrated - with two openings - as a name for a river in Damascus and a rope in Hijaz and a name for the sea. 'And mixes' means it blends. It was said 'it filters' meaning it is transferred from one vessel to another. Perhaps it was narrated 'it filters' from filtering. And 'the pure wine' is the clear one. 'The easy to drink' means 'from the water' is the first object, and 'upon them' is said to be related to an omitted state of the intended pronoun in 'water.' The apparent meaning is that it is related to 'water' meaning it has come and descended. And 'the coolness' is the second object. And 'mixes' is a present tense clause. The meaning is that everyone who comes to them from Al-Baris is given to drink cool water while it mixes as mentioned. It is permissible that its meaning is that its waves crash, so the 'b' is for association. It is possible that it has an inversion. The original is 'the pure wine mixes with it,' and perhaps this is a metaphor for their generosity due to their abundance of giving. It was said that the pure wine is the clear wine that is easy. The meaning is by comparison, as if it were water like wine. The apparent meaning remains on its truth, and that is before its prohibition, which is more appropriate in the context of praise. If you say: 'the coolness' is feminine, why did he say 'mixes' in the masculine? I said: There is a masculine added that was omitted, so the added noun took its place in grammar and masculinity. The original is: 'the water of the coolness.' Where it mentioned 'mixes' because the meaning is 'the water of the coolness,' and there is no place for his saying: 'they make' because it is a new statement, for when thunder and lightning were mentioned as indicating severity and terror, it is as if someone said: 'What is their state with such thunder?' So it was said: 'They make their fingers in their ears.' Then it was said: 'What is their state with such lightning?' So it was said: 'The lightning almost takes away their sight.' If you say: 'The tip of the finger is what is put in the ear,' then why was it not said 'their fingertips?' I said: This is from the expansions in the language that it is difficult for the enumerator to encompass.

(So wash your faces and your hands), (So cut off their hands). Some intended that which is up to the elbow and that which is up to the wrist. Also, in mentioning the fingers, there is an emphasis that is not in mentioning the tips of the fingers. If you say: The finger that you use to block the ear is a specific finger, [Mawlid said: 'If you say: The finger that you use to block the ear... etc. Ahmad said: There is no relevance to these two questions. As for the first, it is not necessary that they block their ears in that situation with the index finger, for it is a state of confusion and astonishment. So any finger that happened to be used to block it, they did so without adhering to an accustomed order in that. Thus, mentioning the general fingers is more indicative of astonishment and confusion. Or perhaps they prefer in this situation to block their ears with the middle finger, because it is more effective for the ear and more obstructive to sound, so it is not necessary for them to limit themselves to the index finger. As for the second question, it is derived from the first, and its invalidity has become clear. Also, it contains further awkwardness, as the purpose is to liken the state of the hypocrites to that of others who are confused. So how is it appropriate to refer to their fingers as the 'praising fingers'? And perhaps their tongues have never praised Allah at all. Then, if the purpose of the parable is to depict meanings in minds as if they were tangible, it is more fitting to mention the explicit terms and avoid the metaphors and symbols.]] So why was the general name mentioned without the specific? I said: Because the index finger is active from 'to point', so avoiding it is more appropriate to the etiquette of the Qur'an. Do you not see that they have found it distasteful, so they referred to it as the 'praising finger', 'the swimmer', 'the glorifier', and 'the supplicator'? If you say: Why not mention some of these metaphors? I said: They are newly coined words that people did not recognize in that era; they only invented them later. And the saying 'from the thunderbolts' is related to 'they make', meaning: because of the thunderbolts, they put their fingers in their ears, like saying: 'He watered him from the stream' [The saying 'He watered him from the stream' refers to the craving for milk, and it was said to mean the intensity of his craving. This was clarified in the dictionaries.]. And the thunderbolt is a flash of thunder accompanied by a piece of fire. They said: It ignites from the clouds when its bodies collide. It is a delicate, intense fire. It does not pass by anything without affecting it, but with its intensity, it quickly extinguishes. It is said that it fell on a palm tree and burned about half of it, then it was extinguished. And it is said: 'The thunderbolt struck him' if it destroyed him, so he was struck, meaning he died either from the intensity of the sound or from burning. And from it is His saying: (And Moses fell down unconscious). And Al-Hasan read: 'from the thunderbolts', and it is not a transformation of 'the thunderbolts', because both constructions are equal in usage, and if they are equal, then each is a construction in its own right. Do you not see that you say: 'He struck him on the head', and 'the rooster crowed', and 'an eloquent speaker': one who is clear in his speech? And its counterpart is 'jabd' in 'jadhb', it is not a transformation of it since they are equal in usage. Its construction may either be an adjective for the flash of thunder or for the thunder itself, and the 'ta' is for emphasis as in 'the narrator', or a source like 'the liar' and 'the health'. And Ibn Abi Layla read: 'Beware of death', and it is in the accusative as it is an object of purpose like the saying: 'And forgive the shame of the noble for his saving.' [And the shame has turned away from it and has not harmed it... and the one with a bend has been straightened by fighting, so it stands. And forgive the shame of the noble for his saving... and turn away from the insult of the vile as an act of generosity. This is from Hatim al-Ta'i. And it was said to al-Ahnaf ibn Qais. He says: 'By the Lord of the shame', meaning a bad word, which has turned away from being held accountable for it, so it did not harm me. And by the one with a bend - meaning a crookedness - like a bent stick, I straightened it and corrected it by fighting, so it stands. And he divided the insults into two categories: each with a specific reason, saying: 'And forgive the shame of the noble', meaning his disgrace, for the sake of my saving him. So 'my saving' is an object of purpose, accusative with 'forgive', even if it is known by addition. And turn away from my insult to the vile man as an act of generosity from me so that I am not like him. And it is permissible that the meaning is: from holding the vile accountable for insulting me as an act of generosity from me. So 'as an act of generosity' is an accusative object with 'turn away'. And the saying that 'as an act of generosity' is a reason for 'turn away' and 'forgive': is the saying of one who has not tasted the essence of speech.]]

And death is the corruption of the essence of living beings. It was said: it is a state in which sensation does not exist, which is contrary to life. And Allah's encompassing of the disbelievers is a metaphor. The meaning is that they do not escape Him, just as what is encompassed does not escape the one who encompasses it in reality. This sentence is an interruption that has no place here. And 'the snatching' is taking quickly. Mujahid read 'yakhṭif' with a kasra on the ṭa, while the opening is more eloquent and superior. And from Ibn Mas'ud: 'yakhtafi'. And from Al-Hasan: 'yakhṭif', with an opening on the ya and the kha, and its origin is 'yakhtafi'. And from him: 'yakhṭif', with both broken in following the ya and kha. And from Zayd ibn Ali: 'yakhṭif', from 'khaṭaf'. And from Ubayy: 'yatakhṭaf', from His saying: 'people are snatched from around them'. Whenever it illuminates for them is a third resumption, as if it is an answer to one who says: how do they act in the two states of the flashing of lightning and its concealment? This is a representation of the severity of the matter upon the hypocrites, as it is severe upon the companions of the raincloud and what they are in of utmost bewilderment and ignorance regarding what they do and what they leave, when they encounter a flash of lightning, fearing that their sight will be snatched away. They seize that flash as an opportunity and take a few steps. But when it is concealed and its brightness fades, they remain standing, restrained from movement. If Allah had willed, He could have increased the rumbling of thunder to deafen them, or in the light of the lightning to blind them. And 'illuminated': it can either be transitive, meaning: whenever He lights up for them a path and a way, the object being omitted, or it can be intransitive, meaning: whenever it shines for them, they walk in the place of its light and where its brightness falls. This is supported by the reading of Ibn Abi 'Abla: whenever it lights up for them, and walking is a type of specific movement. If it intensifies, it is running. If it increases, it is racing. If you say: how is it said with illumination 'whenever', and with darkness 'if'? I say: because they are eager for the existence of what they are concerned about, which is the possibility of walking and approaching it. So whenever they encounter an opportunity from it, they seize it, but the same does not apply to stopping and being restrained. And 'darkened': it is possible that it is intransitive, which is the apparent meaning, and it could be transitive, transferred from the darkness of the night. This is supported by the reading of Yazid ibn Qutaybah: 'darkened', in what does not name its doer. And it came in the poetry of Habib ibn Aws: 'They darkened my state, then they revealed it... their darkness from the face of a beautiful young man.' 'I attempted to guide myself, so my mind is my guide... or did my time educate me, so my time is my educator.' 'They darkened my state, then they revealed it... their darkness from the face of a beautiful young man.' 'Sorrowful in the throats of calamities, brightened by his resolve in the trivialities, darkened by his resolve in the serious matters.' For Abu Tammam. And it is said to Habib ibn Aws: 'To attempt something' means to desire it and to hover around obtaining it. 'To seek something' means to aim for it and pursue its signs and recognize it through them. It is narrated: or did I long for it? And His saying 'from the face of a beautiful young man' contains a stripping, meaning from the face of a young man, a metaphor for good character. 'Beautiful young man' is a metaphor for the quality of sound judgment necessary for the perfection of manhood. The first is a metaphor for proceeding in paths of frivolity, and the second is a metaphor for proceeding in paths of seriousness, so they both gathered together in one time. It is possible that he is young even though he is beautiful due to the many calamities of time. 'Sorrowful' is what gets stuck in the throat, neither rising nor falling. 'Brightened' and 'darkened': going east and west. The intended meaning is generalization. And 'triviality': is a Persian word that has been Arabized, meaning a small path that is not the main road, and its plural is 'turahat' and 'tarariyah'. Then it was borrowed for falsehood and became a name for it, meaning: if you want my guide, it is my mind, or my educator, it is my time. So the question is conditional, and it is possible that it is reproachful, and the 'fa' is explanatory for something omitted, meaning: it is not appropriate to desire my guidance or my education, for my time and my mind have taken care of that. This is clarified by His saying 'they darkened'. And the use of 'darkened' transitively is a poor language. 'My state' is the object. And 'darkening' is a metaphor for the annoyance of living and the disturbance of the heart. And 'revealed': they removed and uncovered their darkness. And 'the two darknesses': is a metaphor for disturbance and annoyance. And His saying 'sorrowful' is a replacement for the beautiful young man, meaning like the sorrowful.

And he compared events to animals that have throats, in a figurative manner, and the throats are an imagination for that. The meaning is that events have become ineffective upon him, and his determination has proceeded in all paths of jest as it has proceeded in seriousness, and between the east and the west is a contrast of opposition. And although he is a newcomer, his poetry is not cited in the language, he is among the scholars of Arabic. So consider what he says as being on par with what he narrates. Do you not see the scholars' saying: 'The proof of this is a verse from Al-Hamasah,' and they are satisfied with that due to their trust in his narration and mastery. And the meaning of 'Qamu' is they stood and remained in their place. From it: 'The market stood,' if it stagnated, and 'the water stood': it froze. And the object of 'sha'a' is omitted, because the answer indicates it. The meaning is: If Allah had willed to take away their hearing and sight, He would have taken them away. And this omission has become frequent in 'sha'a' and 'arada,' they hardly mention the object except in something strange, like in the saying: 'If I had willed to cry blood, I would have cried it.' [I possessed the tears of the eye when I returned them ... to my sight, and the eye is like the heart that weeps. If I had willed to cry blood, I would have cried it ... upon it, but the expanse of patience is wider.] By Ibn Ya'qub, Ishaq ibn Hasan Al-Khudhaymi, mourning Abu Al-Haydham, Amir of the Arabs of Ash-Sham. He says: My tears overcame me, and I was able to control them when I returned them to their place. And it is narrated: 'Then I returned them,' while they are weeping tears like the heart in redness and burning, or with tears in accordance with the heart. And it is narrated: 'So the eye is in the heart,' an exaggeration in his thought and grief concealed in it. And he mentioned the object of the will even though it has become in their usage forgotten, because it is something strange, so it is good to mention it. And he implied in 'abki' the meaning of 'adm'a,' so he transited to blood even though it only transits to what is cried over. And he compared patience to a noble one or to a house that has a courtyard in a figurative manner. The intended meaning is that he leaves distress and turns to patience, thus he is characterized by it.] And His saying, the Exalted, 'If We had willed to take a pastime, We would have taken it from Us. (If Allah had willed to take a son).

And he meant: If Allah had willed, He would have taken away their hearing with the thunderclap, and their sight with the flash of lightning. Ibn Abi Abla read: 'He would have taken away their hearing,' with the addition of the preposition 'bi' as in His saying: 'And do not throw with your hands.' And the thing is what can be known and reported about. Sibawayh said in the section of the chapter translated as 'The Course of the Endings of Words in Arabic': The feminine is derived from the masculine. Do you not see that the thing applies to everything that is reported about before it is known whether it is masculine or feminine? And the thing is masculine, and it is the most general of the general terms, just as Allah is the most specific of the specific. It applies to the body, the attribute, and the eternal. You say: A thing unlike the things, meaning a known thing unlike other known things, and regarding the nonexistent and the impossible. If you say: How is it said 'Indeed, Allah is capable of all things' while among things there are those to which the capable does not relate, such as the impossible? [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'And among things there are those to which the capable does not relate, such as the impossible... etc.' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This which he mentioned is an error based on the original and the branch. As for the original, it is because the thing does not encompass except the existent according to the Ahl al-Sunnah. And as for the branch, even if we branch on the belief of the Qadarites—where the thing for them only encompasses the existent and the nonexistent that can exist, thus it does not encompass the impossible—then according to this branching, what is intended by it as a refutation is not valid on both doctrines. And as for the possible between two capable beings, it is a dilemma that only the Qadarites, who believe that what the servant's power relates to cannot be related to the power of the Lord, fall into, for the servant's power is creative, thus the action is independent of the power of another Creator—glorified and exalted is He above what they associate with Him. And as for the Ahl al-Sunnah, the capable Creator for them is one, and He is Allah, the One, the Unique. His power relates to the action and creates it, and the servant's power relates to it as an association without effect, thus a possible action between two capable beings is not created according to this interpretation. And Al-Zamakhshari stuffed in the folds of his words the negation of the ancient power and denied it, making Allah, the Exalted, capable by essence, not by power, hiding this under his saying: 'And among things there are those to which the essence of the capable does not relate,' and he did not say 'by the power of the capable,' so let one be cautious of his hidden agendas. And how many misguidances he has concealed in this statement, and Allah is the Grantor of success. If it is said: O Ash'ariyyah, if the thing for you is the existent, what is the meaning of being capable of it after its existence and persistence, while Allah, the Exalted, says, and He is the most truthful of the speakers: 'Indeed, Allah is capable of all things'? We say: The power relates to its object, so it brings it into existence, thus it becomes a thing. Therefore, since the outcome of what the power relates to is inevitably a thing, it is correct to apply the term 'thing' to it, and it is from the realm of: 'Whoever kills a person, for him is his spoils.' And if they name the thing by what it usually leads to, then what it inevitably leads to is more deserving. And the action of another capable being [The phrase 'the action of another capable being' is likely based on the doctrine of the Mu'tazilah that the servant is the doer of his voluntary actions. The doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah is that the true doer is Allah, the Exalted.]? I say: It is conditional in the definition of the capable that the action is not impossible, so the impossible is excluded in itself when mentioning the capable of all things, as if it were said: 'Capable of every upright thing.' An example of this is: 'So-and-so is a leader over the people,' meaning over those behind him among them, and he has not included himself among them even if he is one of the people. As for the action between two capable beings, it is disputed. If you ask: From what is the derivation of the capable? I say: From the estimation, because it executes its action according to the measure of its strength and ability and what distinguishes it from the incapable.