The meaning of the hamzah in "how" is similar to your saying: "Do you disbelieve in Allah while you have what diverts you from disbelief and calls you to faith?" This is denial and astonishment. An example of this is your saying: "Do you fly without wings?" And how do you fly without wings? If you say: Your saying, "Do you fly without wings?" is a denial of flying, because it is impossible without wings. As for disbelief, it is not impossible with what has been mentioned of death and resurrection. I say: It has been presented in the form of the impossible due to the strength of what diverts from disbelief and calls to faith. If you say: It has become clear that the hamzah is for denying the action and indicating its impossibility in itself, or for the strength of what diverts from it, what do you say about "how" where it was a denial of the state that their disbelief occurs upon? I say: The state of a thing is dependent on its essence. If the existence of the essence is denied, then the existence of the state is also denied. Thus, the denial of the state of disbelief is because it is a companion of the essence of disbelief, and its affirmation is in the form of a metaphor. This is stronger for denying disbelief and more eloquent. Its clarification is that if he denies that there is a state for their disbelief that exists upon it. It is known that every existent is not devoid of a state and attribute at the time of its existence. It is impossible for it to exist without an attribute, which is a denial of its existence in a rational manner.

The waw in His saying "and you were dead" is for the state. If you say: How can it be correct for it to be a state while it is past? It is not said, "I came and the prince stood," but "and the prince stood," not that "قد" is implied? I say: The waw did not enter upon "you were dead" alone, but rather on the entire sentence from "you were dead" to "you will be returned." It is as if it was said: How do you disbelieve in Allah while your story is this and your state is that you were dead as drops in the loins of your fathers, then He made you alive, then He will cause you to die after this life, then He will bring you to life after death, then He will hold you accountable. If you say:

Some of the story is past and some is future, and both the past and the future cannot be a state unless it is a present action at the time of the existence of what it is a state of. What is the present that occurred as a state? I say: It is the knowledge of the story, as if it was said: How do you disbelieve while you are aware of this story from its beginning to its end? If you say:

The meaning has reached your saying: In what state do you disbelieve while you are aware of this story? What is the basis for its correctness? I say: We have mentioned that the meaning of the question in "how" is denial. The denial of the state is inclusive of the denial of the essence in a metaphorical manner, as if it was said: How strange is your disbelief while you are aware of your state! If you say: If their knowledge is connected that they were dead and He brought them to life, then they will die, how is it not connected to the second resurrection and return? I say: They have been able to know it through the evidences that lead to it, so it is as if they have obtained knowledge. Many of them knew and then opposed. The dead is the plural of dead, like the sayings regarding the plural of "qil". If you say: How were they called dead while they were inanimate, and it is only said dead regarding what can have life from the body? I say: Rather, it is said for the lacking of life, as in His saying: "a dead town," and "a sign for them is the dead earth," and "dead, not alive." It may be a metaphor for their commonality in the absence of spirit and sensation.

If you say: What is meant by the second resurrection? I say: It may refer to the resurrection in the grave, and by return:

The resurrection. And it is intended by resurrection, and by returning: the destination to recompense. If you say: Why was the first conjunction with 'fa' and the subsequent one with 'thumma'? I say: Because the first revival followed death without delay, whereas death was delayed from revival. The second revival is also delayed from death - if it is intended by resurrection - with a clear delay. And if it is intended by the revival of the grave, from it knowledge is acquired by its delay, and the return to recompense is also delayed from resurrection. If you say: From where is it denied that disbelief coincides with the story that Allah mentioned? Is it because it contains clear signs that divert them from disbelief, or because of great blessings that deserve to be thanked and not disbelieved? I say: Both possibilities are valid, because what is enumerated are signs, and they are among the greatest blessings. They are for you and for your benefit in your worldly life and your religion. As for worldly benefit, it is evident. And as for religious benefit, it is in contemplating it and what it contains of wondrous creation that indicates the capable and wise Creator, and what it contains of reminders of the Hereafter and its rewards and punishments, as it encompasses causes of comfort and pleasure from various foods, drinks, fruits, marriages, means of transport, and beautiful sights, as well as causes of discomfort and hardship from types of adversities such as fires, lightning, wild beasts, poisonous creatures, sorrows, and fears. And it has been inferred from His saying: (He created for you) that the things which can be benefited from... [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: qal Mahmoud rahimahu Allah: 'And it has been inferred from His saying: (He created for you) that the things which can be benefited from...']... and Ahmad rahimahu Allah said: This is an inference by a group of the Qadarites who claimed that Allah's ruling is permissibility in the entities of benefits that reason does not indicate their prohibition before the messengers arrived, receiving it from reason, and they claimed that it contains benefits and the need of creation calls for it. So He created it despite its danger to the servants contrary to the requirements of wisdom, thus they believed by the dictates of reason that it is permissible in Allah's ruling, and this is a mistake arising from the false principle of good and bad. As for the inference of Al-Zamakhshari for this group by the verse, it is not correct, for their claim that reason is sufficient for the permissibility of these things. If the verse indicates permissibility, then we say according to it, and it would then be a legal permissibility based on hearing. And if it does not indicate permissibility, there remains no hope in inferring it. And they did not follow the course of prohibitions in reason; they were created in origin permissible for everyone to consume and benefit from. If you say: Is there validity in the saying of one who claimed that the meaning is He created for you the earth and what is in it? I say: If he meant by the earth the lower regions without the dust as the sky is mentioned and the upper regions are intended: that is permissible, for the dust and what is in it is located in the lower regions. And all of them are in the accusative as a state from the second relative. And 'al-Istawa' means moderation and uprightness. It is said: The stick became upright, if it stood and straightened, then it was said: He directed himself to it like an arrow sent if he aimed at it with a straight aim, without turning aside to anything. From it is borrowed the saying: (Then He directed Himself to the heavens), meaning He intended it with His will and desire after creating what is in the earth, without intending in between that to create anything else. And what is meant by the heavens: the upper regions, as if it were said: Then He directed Himself upwards. And the pronoun in 'Then He perfected them' is an ambiguous pronoun. And 'seven heavens' is its explanation, like their saying: His Lord is a man. And it is said the pronoun refers back to the heavens. And 'heaven' is in the sense of the genus. And it is said to be a plural of 'sama'a'. The Arabic face is the first. And the meaning of perfecting them is: adjusting their creation, and presenting it, and clearing it from crookedness and flaws, or completing their creation, and He is All-Knowing of everything. Thus He created them with a straight and precise creation without disparity, along with creating what is in the earth according to the needs of its people and their benefits and interests.

If you say: What you explained about the meaning of 'rising to the heaven' contradicts 'then' for giving it the meaning of delay and respite, I say: 'Then' here is for the difference between the two creations and the superiority of the creation of the heavens over the creation of the earth, not for the delay in time, like His saying: (Then he was among those who believed). Moreover, if it were for the meaning of delay in time, what you objected to would not be necessary, because the meaning is that when He intended to the heaven, He did not create another creation in between that - meaning in the stages of intending it. If you say: Does this not contradict His saying: (And the earth, after that, He spread it)? I say: No, because the mass of the earth was created before the creation of the heaven. As for its spreading, that is later. And from Al-Hasan: Allah created the earth in the place of Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa in the shape of a disc, with smoke adhering to it, then He raised the smoke and created from it the heavens, and He kept the disc in its place and spread the earth from it. That is His saying: (They were both a closed-up mass) which is the adherence.