Did you not see the amazement at the argument of Nimrod against Allah and his disbelief in Him? That Allah gave him the kingdom is related to the argument in two ways. Mahmoud said: 'Indeed, the giving is related to the argument in two ways... etc.' Ahmad said: May Allah forgive him, and the two ways are close in meaning, except that there is a difference between them in terms of methodology. He only used the source in the first as a reason for it, and in the second as a circumstance.

Sources have occurred as circumstances in phrases like: the rising of the star, and the arrival of the pilgrim, and similar examples. The argument occurred with this circumstance because it includes the giving of the kingdom which led him to arrogance, or to placing the disbelief in gratitude in place of thanking it. These two meanings are the same as mentioned in the first way, and for this reason, I pointed out that the difference between the two ways is methodological, not meaningful. And Allah is the One who grants success to the meanings of His words.

The first: he argued because Allah gave him the kingdom, meaning that the giving of the kingdom made him arrogant and led him to pride and rebellion, so he argued for that, or that he placed the argument against his Lord in place of what he was obliged to do in gratitude for Allah giving him the kingdom. It is as if the argument was for that reason, just as you say: So-and-so opposed me because I was good to him, meaning that he acted contrary to what he should have done in loyalty due to the kindness. Similar to His saying: 'And you make your provision that you deny.'

The second: he argued at the time Allah gave him the kingdom. If you say: How could Allah give the disbeliever the kingdom? I say: There are two opinions: He gave him what he conquered and dominated of wealth, servants, and followers, but as for the dominance and authority, that is not the case. It is said:

His kingdom is a test for His servants. Ahmad said: The question is based on a false premise, which is the belief that it is necessary to consider what the Qadarites imagine to be good or better for Allah in His actions, and all of that is from the principles of the Qadarites which the decisive proof has uprooted, so it has no standing. As for presenting the question in the form: Why did Allah give the disbeliever the kingdom? Or did He not do such and such? The answer is returned in general to His saying: 'He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.' If the deaf and dumb could hear. And Allah is the Guardian of agreement. (He returned to his words) And the meaning of His saying: 'I give life and cause death':

I pardon for killing and I kill. The objection was ready, but when Ibrahim, blessings and peace be upon him, heard his foolish answer, he did not argue with him about it, but he moved to something he could not respond to in a similar manner to astonish him at first. This is evidence of the permissibility of transitioning for the arguer from one proof to another proof. Ahmad said: Many scholars have committed that what was said by the Friend of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, is not a transition from proof, but from an example. As for the proof, it is his reasoning for the divinity of Allah, glorified and exalted is He, by the connection of His ability to what the ability of the created cannot be connected to. Then this has examples, including giving life and causing death, and bringing the sun from the east. Shifting after establishing the proof and laying the foundation from one example to another is not strange among the people of debate, and Allah knows best. And when he said: 'I give life and cause death,' it was established by the argument or replaced by the giving as it was made to mean the time. 'I give life and cause death' means I pardon for killing and I kill. The objection was ready, but when Ibrahim heard his foolish answer, he did not argue with him about it, but he moved to something he could not respond to in a similar manner to astonish him at first.

And this is evidence for the permissibility of the debater moving from one proof to another. It was recited (فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ) meaning that Ibrahim overcame the disbeliever. Abu Haywah read it as فبهت, in the same measure as قرب. It was said that this argument took place when the idols were broken and he was imprisoned by Nimrod. Then he was taken out of prison to be burned, and he said to him: Who is your Lord that you call upon? He said: My Lord who gives life and causes death. Or like the one whose meaning is: Or did you see like the one who passed by. [Mahamud said: 'Its meaning is or did you see like the one who passed... etc.' Ahmad said: 'And such a structure often omits the verb of seeing, like his saying: He said to her, no, hurry... like today sought and not seeking. He means I did not see like today, so he omitted the verb and the negation particle. The apparent interpretation of the verse is based on the first meaning due to the existence of its counterpart, and Allah knows best.] So it was omitted due to the indication of أَلَمْ تَرَ upon it because both are words of amazement. It is permissible to interpret it based on meaning without the wording, as if it were said: Did you see like the one who debated Ibrahim or like the one who passed by a village. And the passerby was a disbeliever. [(He returned to his speech) He said: And the passerby was a disbeliever in resurrection, which is apparent for his alignment with Nimrod in the same category. It was said: He was a believer, either Uzair or Al-Khidr, and he wanted to witness the living as Ibrahim requested. And his saying 'one day' was based on assumption. It was narrated that he died in the morning and was resurrected after a hundred years before sunset, and it was said - it was said looking at the sun - 'one day', then he turned and saw a remnant of it and said: Or part of a day, his speech ended. Ahmad said: As for Al-Zamakhshari's argument that the passerby was a disbeliever due to his alignment with Nimrod in the same category, it is opposed by the fact that his story was organized with the story of Ibrahim in one sequence. Thus, the argument for his disbelief by the association of his story with that of Nimrod is no more valid than the argument for his faith by its alignment with the story of Ibrahim, unless one says that the story of this passerby is connected to the story of Nimrod in a way that shares the action, explicitly stated in the first and omitted in the second, indicated by its prior mention. And this is not the case with the story of Ibrahim, for it is introduced with the conjunction 'و' which does not enter in many of its cases for sharing, but for improving the structure so that it mediates between the sentences that are known to be related for that purpose. And it is not the case with its connection in the story of Nimrod, for it is with 'أو' which is only used for sharing, since the improvement of wording is specific to 'و'. So we say: If the preference reaches this level of precision, it is opposed by the thematic connection between the story of the passerby and the story of Ibrahim, because their requests are one, as the passerby asked to witness the living, and likewise Ibrahim's request. Then the thematic connection is stronger than the attachment to verbal matters that lead to different aspects, and the saying that the passerby was a believer is supported by his precision in the saying of Allah, the Exalted: (يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ) for its apparent meaning is to avoid distortion in speech so that he does not express the whole day as 'a day' out of caution from obscuring his request for the entirety of the day. And such precision does not come from a denier, and Allah knows best.

And it is not said that this inquiry came from him only after he was revived and believed. For we say that he only believed upon the statement of his disbelief after the verses appeared. This is indicated by His saying, the Most High: (So when it became clear to him, he said: I know that Allah is All-Powerful over everything). As for the inquiry mentioned, it was at the beginning of the story before the belief. I only posed this question for a point that al-Zamakhshari will mention now, which indicates a challenge to the aforementioned preference. Then this boldness that al-Zamakhshari conveyed in his speech, that he only said: or part of a day when he saw a remnant of the sun that he had not seen at the beginning of his words, and he corrected the matter, contains a subtle point that I have not found in anyone who narrated the story in his tafsir. This is because if the matter is as it contains, and the words of the passerby mentioned were initially based on certainty that he remained a day, then he later asserted that his stay was only part of a day due to seeing a remnant of the sun. The expression about his state should have been that he said: rather part of a day, shifting from his initial certainty to his second certainty. This is because 'or' only enters into the news when its beginning is based on certainty and then doubt arises at its end, and there is no certainty of the opposite. Thus, the mentioned narration necessitates that the place should be for 'rather' and not for 'or,' since the place of 'rather' is a certainty of the opposite of the first. If that is established, then it appears from the state of the passerby that he was initially certain and then doubted, nothing more, following the implication of the verse, and deviating from the narration that can only be established by a decisive chain, which compels him to interpret. So reflect on this point, for it is from the subtle points, and Allah is the Grantor of success. As for the resurrection, it is apparent for its alignment with Nimrod in the context of the word of disbelief, which is: how can he be revived? It was said that he is 'Aziz or al-Khidr. He wanted to witness the revival of the dead to increase his insight, as Ibrahim, blessings and peace be upon him, requested. And His saying: how can He revive acknowledges the inability to know the method of revival and the greatness of the power of the reviver. And the village refers to Jerusalem when it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. It was said that it is the one from which thousands emerged while it was empty on its roofs, its interpretation will come later. A day or part of a day is based on assumption.

It is narrated that he died in the forenoon and was resurrected after one hundred years before the sun set. He said before looking at the sun: "A day," then he turned and saw a remnant of the sun and said: "Or part of a day." It is narrated that his food was figs and grapes. His drink was either juice or milk, and he found the figs and grapes as they had been harvested, and the drink in its state had not changed, it had not spoiled. The 'he' is original or it is a letter of pause. Its derivation from 'sunnah' is in both ways, because its root is either 'he' or 'waw,' and this is because something changes with the passage of time. It was said: Its origin is 'yatasannun,' from the smooth clay, so its 'noon' was changed to a vowel letter, like 'taqda al-bazi.' It is possible that the meaning of 'lam yatasannah' is that the years that passed did not pass over it, meaning it is in the same state as it was as if it had not remained for one hundred years. In the reading of Abdullah: "So look at your food and this is your drink, it has not spoiled." And Ubayy read: "It has not aged," by merging the 'ta' into the 'sīn.' And look at your donkey how its bones have scattered and decayed, and he had a donkey that he had tied. It is possible that it means: And look at it safe in its place as you tied it, and that is one of the greatest signs that it lived for one hundred years without fodder or water, just as his food and drink were preserved from change. And We made you a sign for the people, We did that to want to revive him after death and preserve what was with him. It was said: He came to his people riding his donkey and said: "I am Uzair," but they denied him. He said: "Bring the Torah," and he began to recite it quickly from memory while they were looking at the book, and he did not miss a letter. They said: "He is the son of Allah." No one had read the Torah outwardly before Uzair, so that is why he is a sign. It was said: He returned to his home and saw his children as old men while he was young. When he spoke to them about a matter, they said: "A story of one hundred years." And look at the bones, they are the bones of the donkey or the bones of the dead whom he was amazed at their revival: "How do we revive them?" And Al-Hasan read: "We will spread them," from Allah reviving the dead, meaning: We will revive them and they were revived, and it was read with a 'zāy,' meaning to move them and raise some of them to each other for assembly.

And the subject of 'tabayyana' is implied, its meaning is: When it became clear to him that Allah is capable of all things, he said: "I know that Allah is capable of all things." The first was omitted because the second indicates it, as in their saying: "He struck me and I struck Zayd." It is possible: When it became clear to him what was unclear to him, meaning the matter of reviving the dead. Ibn Abbas may Allah be pleased with him read: "When it became clear to him" in the passive form. And it was read: "Say: Know," in the form of command. And Abdullah read: "It was said: Know." If you say: If the passerby was a disbeliever, how is it permissible for Allah to speak to him? (His words) said: "If you say if the passerby is a disbeliever ..." Ahmad said: This is a strange question, and the answer to it is even stranger. And who concedes to this questioner that Allah does not permit to speak to the disbeliever? Is this anything but a matter without foundation?

Is it not that Iblis is the head of disbelief and its source, and yet Allah said: "Get out of it, for you are accursed ..." to the end of the verse, and Allah says to the disbelievers while they are in its depths being punished: "Be quiet in it and do not speak to Me." And because this matter is certain to occur, let alone its permissibility, the first scholars said: "And Allah does not speak to them" meaning He does not speak to them with what pleases them and benefits them. This is a face of astonishment from the question. As for the answer, I have previously indicated its rejection by stating that the faith of this passerby, on the assumption that he was a disbeliever, only occurred at the end of the story after the signs became clear to him. As for the speech of Allah, it was from the beginning of the story. I said: Al-Zamakhshari has relieved us of the burden of this virtue, both in question and answer, and Allah is the Helper.