If you say: And those who believe, are they different from the first ones or are they the first ones? The conjunction is in the middle as it is placed between attributes in your saying, he is the brave and the generous. And in the saying: To the noble king and the son of the brave... and the lion of the battalion in the crowded place. [[The genitive phrase relates to what precedes it in poetry. And the noble - with a fatḥah - originally means: the honored stallion that is exempted from work for its excellence and is encouraged to breed camels. It is a metaphor for the chief or the knight prepared for hardships. The dictionary suggests it means the master in reality. The conjunction 'wa' is in the middle of the attributes to emphasize their connection to the noun. And the brave: the one of great ambition, strong determination. And it is a metaphor for the lion for the brave in a clear manner. The battalion: the organized army. And the crowded place: the battlefield because it is the place of crowding, and its origin is 'muztahim' from the form of 'if'tiʿāl' with its 'tā' changed to a 'dāl.]] And His saying: O the regret for Ziyabah for Al-Harith... the one who is swift and the victorious and the returning? [[O the regret for Ziyabah for Al-Harith... the swift, the victorious, and the returning. By Allah, if I met him alone... I would return our swords with the victor. This is in response to Al-Harith ibn Hisham when he said to him: O son of Ziyabah, if you meet me... do not meet me among the stray camels. And meet me with a bare sword... leading the blessing like a rider. The stray - with a zāy - is one far from his family. He implies that Ziyabah is a guardian of camels, not brave. And the bare: the one without hair. And the blessing in the camel and horse: the prominent bone in their chest, and its bone is praised in them, and he likens it to the rider in the length of its neck and its extension. It may be that the meaning is that its rider is also leading the blessing, not one who is humble and withdrawn. He says: O the regret of my father for the sake of Al-Harith who achieved his desire from me. And there is a kind of sarcasm in it, for if he threatened him, then he turned back on his heels. It is said that it is on its apparent meaning, then he swore that if he found him, he would kill him, but he presented the words in a way that implies fairness in speech and the return of the two swords with the victor: a metaphor for killing the defeated and seizing his weapon.]] I said: It is possible that by these are meant the believers of the People of the Book like Abdullah ibn Salam and his likes from those who believed. Their faith included every revelation sent down from Allah, and they were certain of the Hereafter, a certainty that removed what they were upon that no one would enter Paradise except those who were Jews or Christians and that the Fire would not touch them except for a few days. Their agreement on the acknowledgment [[The phrase 'and their agreement on the acknowledgment' is perhaps an addition to the genitive 'from' in the explanatory sense, considering what it is connected to from their division and differences that will follow, so reflect. (A)]] of the other life and the resurrection of souls in bodies, then their division into two groups: some said: Their state in enjoying food, drinks, and marriages is according to its course in this world, and others denied it, claiming that this is only needed in this abode for the growth of bodies and for the sake of reproduction. The people of Paradise are independent of it, so they do not enjoy except with the breeze, fragrant souls, delightful sounds, joy, and happiness, and their differences in permanence and cessation, so the one that is conjoined is different from the one that is not conjoined. And it is possible that the description of the first ones is intended. And the conjunction is in the middle meaning that they are those who combine between those attributes and these. If you say: If these are intended to be different from those, do they enter into the category of the righteous or not? I say: If you conjoin them to (those who believe in the unseen), they would enter, and the attribute of righteousness would include both groups of the believers of the People of the Book and others. And if you conjoin them to (for the righteous), they would not enter. It is as if it is said: guidance for the righteous, and guidance for those who believe in what has been revealed to you.

If you say: His saying 'by what has been revealed to you' means the entire Qur'an and the entire Sharia, then that was not revealed at the time of their faith. How then is it said that it was revealed in the past tense? If what is meant is the portion that was revealed prior to their faith, then it is faith in part of what has been revealed, and encompassing faith in all of it, past and anticipated, is obligatory. I say: What is meant is the entirety of what has been revealed, and it is expressed in the past tense even if some of it is anticipated, giving precedence to what exists over what does not exist, just as the speaker is given precedence over the addressee, and the addressee over the absent. It is said: 'I and you did it,' and 'you and Zayd are doing it.' Because if some of it is revealed and some of it is awaited, it is as if all of it has been revealed and its revelation has ended. This is supported by His saying: 'Indeed, we have heard a book that was revealed after Musa,' although they did not hear the entire book, nor was it all revealed. But its case is like what we have mentioned. An example is your saying: 'Everything that so-and-so spoke is eloquent, and whatever he spoke is rare.' You do not mean this only in the past tense without the future, as it is interconnected, with some of it linked to the other. Yazid ibn Qutayb read 'by what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you' in the form of what names its doer. In the precedence of 'the Hereafter' and the construction of 'they are certain' on 'they' is a reference to the People of the Book and what they were upon in affirming the matter of the Hereafter contrary to its reality, and that their saying does not stem from certainty. Certainty is what one who believes in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you possesses. Certainty is the perfection of knowledge with the absence of doubt and suspicion. 'And the Hereafter' is the feminine form of the other, which is the opposite of the first, and it is a description of the abode, as indicated by His saying: 'That is the abode of the Hereafter.' It is one of the predominant attributes, just as is this world. It is reported from Nafi' that he softened it by omitting the hamzah and transferring its movement to the lam, like his saying 'the creature of the earth.' Abu Hayyah al-Namiri read 'they are certain' with the hamzah, placing the dammah in the jar of the waw as if it were in it, and he flipped it like the waw in 'faces' and 'I timed.' And similarly: 'How beloved are the two kindlers to me, Musa... and J'adah when the fuel illuminated them.' This is in praise of Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik and his son Musa and his daughter J'adah, and it is said that he is also his son, but that is not so. The lam is for swearing. 'Love' is originally 'loved' - like 'circumstance' - the movement of the ba was transferred to the ha and then merged into the other. Its meaning is the initiation of praise like 'good,' and it also conveys wonder like 'how beloved.' The ha may be opened if its doer is present, and 'the two kindlers' with the hamzah is the doer. 'Musa' with the hamzah as well. 'J'adah' is the one specifically praised in the manner of: 'Yes, for a man is Zayd.' 'Love' is transformed from 'loved' in the three-letter form like 'struck,' although the common form is 'loved' in the four-letter form because it is not used for praise except from the three-letter form. If you say: Is it transformed from 'loved' attributed to the doer, or from 'loved' built for the unknown? I say: If it is from the attributed to the doer, then the two kindlers are loved, and if it is from the attributed to the object, then the transformation is hypothetical. It appears that it is formed from the material without considering attribution. It is permissible that 'love' is originally 'loved' - like 'struck' built for the unknown - so 'the two kindlers' is a substitute for the doer, and 'Musa' and 'J'adah' are a substitute or clarification. The meaning is in the news, not in the initiation. It is narrated: 'The beloved of the kindlers,' adding the comparative form to the plural form, so 'Musa' and 'J'adah' are the news. The flipping of the waw of 'the kindlers' and the hamzah of 'Musa' is allowed, with the preceding one being a dammah, as if it were a dammah, and if it is dammah, the hamzah is changed. It is said: 'The place illuminated' and 'the lamp illuminated it.' What is here from the second is transitive in the sense that the fuel illuminated them, meaning the fire of the villages was ignited and they were kindled by it, whereas in the open form, it is what is kindled by it. The root of 'fa'ool' is an exaggeration in the doer like 'struck,' and it is often used in the sense of what is done with the action like 'fuel' and 'suhur,' so it is possible that it is of the kind of the name of the object, and that it is of the kind of the name of the tool as an exception. The meaning is: how beloved they are to the time when the fire, which they kindle for the guests, illuminated them.