The word ' الربوا ' is written with a ' waw ' in the language of those who emphasize, just as ' الصلاة ' and ' الزكاة ' are written, and the ' alif ' is added afterward, resembling the ' waw ' of the plural. They do not stand when they are raised from their graves. [Mahamood said, may Allah have mercy on him: "It means when they are raised from their graves... etc."] Ahmad said: His saying, 'And the devil strikes from the claims of the Arabs,' means their lies and embellishments that have no reality, just as it is said about the ghoul and the phoenix and similar things. This saying is truly from the devil's striking against the Qadarites in their claims that are rejected by the decisive evidence of the Shari'ah. It has been reported that 'There is no newborn except that the devil touches him, and he cries out at birth.' In some narrations, it says, 'Except that the devil stabs him in his side, and from that, he cries out, except for Mary and her son, due to her saying: I seek refuge with You for her and her offspring from the accursed devil.' And his saying, peace be upon him: 'Take your children in the early evening, for it is the time when the devils spread.' Or, 'You have been protected; it is the hour of their emergence, and they spread in it, and in it occurs the striking.' Shamir said: There was in the tongue of Makhoor a lisp, and he meant the striking from the devil, meaning the affliction of possession or madness. It has been reported in the hadith of the lost one who was snatched by the devils and returned in his time, peace be upon him, that he spoke about his affair with them, saying: 'Then a bird came to me, as if it were a camel, and it stumbled me, and it carried me on its back to other matters that would lengthen the book to mention.' The belief of the Salaf and the people of the Sunnah is that these matters occur in their realities, as the Shari'ah has informed about them. The Qadarites are the opponents of the public, so it is no wonder that they deny much of what they claim to be contrary to their principles, such as: magic, the striking of the devil, and most of the states of the jinn. Even if they acknowledge something of that, it is not in the manner that the people of the Sunnah acknowledge, nor does it indicate what is apparent in the Shari'ah. They have a long confusion, so beware of them; may Allah fight them from where they are turned away. Except as the one who is struck by the devil stands, meaning the possessed. And the striking of the devil from the claims of the Arabs is that they claim the devil strikes a person and causes him to fall. And the striking is hitting without balance, like the striking of the blind, so it came according to what they used to believe. And the touch is madness. And a man possessed, and this is also from their claims, that the jinn touches him and his mind becomes mixed up, and likewise the jinn of the man.

Its meaning is that the jinn struck him, and I saw that they have in the jinn stories, news, and wonders. Denying that among them is like denying the observations. If you say: What does his saying 'from the touch' relate to? I say: It relates to 'they do not stand,' meaning they do not rise from the touch that is upon them except as the one struck down rises. It is also permissible for it to relate to 'they stand,' meaning as the one struck down stands from his madness. The meaning is that they will rise on the Day of Resurrection, staggering like the struck down; those are their signs by which they are recognized among the people of the standing. It is said that those who emerge from the graves will be overwhelmed, except for the eaters of usury, for they will rise and fall like the struck down, because they consumed usury, and Allah has made it grow in their bellies until it weighed them down, so they cannot be overwhelmed. That punishment is due to their saying: 'Indeed, trade is like usury.' If you say: Why was it not said that usury is like trade since the discussion is about usury and not about trade? [Mahrud said: 'If you say why did they not say: Usury is like trade...'] Ahmad said: I have a way to answer the question raised that is different from what was mentioned, which is that whenever the aim is to equate between the two permissible matters in establishing the ruling, the speaker can equate between them in a direct manner, for example, he may say: Usury is like trade, and his aim in that is to say: And trade is lawful, so usury is lawful. He may also equate them in the opposite way, saying: Trade is like usury, so if usury were forbidden, trade would be forbidden by necessity of the similarity. The conclusion that the strength of the speech indicates is that since trade is unanimously lawful and not forbidden, usury must be like it. The first is based on the method of direct analogy, and the second is based on the method of inverse analogy, and their outcome leads to one goal. Thus, there is no need in this explanation to deviate from the apparent meaning for the sake of exaggeration or otherwise. The aim of all this is only to clarify what they imagined based on the model of correct structure, even if it is a flawed analogy, for it contradicts what is known of Allah's ruling regarding the prohibition of usury and the permissibility of trade and cutting the analogy between them. However, if the two mentioned methods are used correctly, then say in the first: Fermented drink is like wine in the reason for prohibition, which is intoxication, and wine is forbidden, so fermented drink is forbidden. And say in the second: Wine is like fermented drink, so if fermented drink were lawful, wine would be lawful, and it is not lawful unanimously, so fermented drink is likewise forbidden by necessity of the mentioned similarity. This explanation is more appropriate to be applied to the verse, and Allah knows best. Thus, it must be said that they likened usury to trade and made it lawful for themselves, and their analogy was that they said: If a man buys something worth only a dirham for two dirhams, it is permissible, so likewise if he sells a dirham for two dirhams? I say: It was brought in a manner of exaggeration, indicating that they had reached such a belief in the permissibility of usury that they made it a principle and law in permissibility until they likened it to trade. And His saying: 'And Allah has made trade lawful and has forbidden usury' is a denial of their equating between them, and an indication that the text nullifies the analogy, for it made the evidence for the invalidation of their analogy the permissibility of Allah and His prohibition. So whoever receives a reminder from Allah and is warned against usury and refrains, following the prohibition and abstaining, then for him is what has passed, and he will not be held accountable for what he did before the prohibition was revealed. And his matter is with Allah; He will judge in his affair on the Day of Resurrection, and there is nothing of His affair that pertains to you, so do not demand it of Him. And whoever returns to usury, then those are the companions of the Fire; they will be therein forever. And this is a clear evidence [The saying 'on the permanence of the sinful' is the doctrine of the Mu'tazila, and they do not remain according to the Ahl al-Sunnah as explained in its place (A)] on the permanence of the sinful. [Mahrud said: 'In this verse is evidence for the permanence of the sinful...'] Ahmad said: It is based on the fact that the one who is threatened with permanence is the one who returns to the act of usury specifically, and the apparent meaning that he used as evidence does not support that, for what he returned to is not mentioned in the verse. Do you not see that He said: 'And whoever returns' and did not mention what he returns to, so it is to be understood as if he said: And whoever returns to what has been previously mentioned, then those are the companions of the Fire; they will be therein forever. And what has been previously mentioned is the act of usury and the belief in its permissibility, and the argument for it by likening it to trade. And there is no doubt among us - the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah - that whoever engages in a usury transaction, believing it to be permissible, is in defiance of its prohibition, attributing its permissibility to opposing the clear verses of Allah with what he imagines from illusions, has disbelieved and increased in disbelief. And at that point, the one promised with permanence in the verse is the one who is said to be a disbeliever, a liar, and not a believer, and this is not disputed. Thus, there is no evidence for al-Zamakhshari against his being a Mu'tazili in this verse, and Allah is the Grantor of success. He is only entrusted with imposing on the verses from false beliefs what they cannot bear, and how can he do that in the glorious Book that falsehood cannot approach from before it or from behind it, a revelation from the Wise, Praiseworthy. And he mentioned the act of the reminder because its femininity is not real, and because it is in the meaning of admonition. And Ubayy and al-Hasan read: 'So whoever comes to him.' Allah erases usury; He removes its blessing and destroys the wealth that it enters into. And from Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him: Usury, no matter how much it increases, decreases to little. And He increases the charities; what is given in charity is multiplied in reward and the wealth from which the charity was taken is increased and blessed in it. In the hadith: 'Charity never decreases wealth.' [From the narration of al-A'la from his father from Abu Huraira with the wording: 'Charity never decreases wealth...'] Every sinful transgressor is a warning regarding the matter of usury and an indication that it is an act of the disbelievers, not of the Muslims.