When He mentioned His allies and His pure servants with the qualities that qualified them to attain closeness to Him, and clarified that the Book is guidance and kindness specifically for them, He followed this by mentioning their opposites, who are the tyrants and rebels among the disbelievers, for whom guidance is of no benefit, nor does kindness avail them. It is the same for them whether the Book exists or not, whether the warning of the Messenger is present or he remains silent. If you say: Why did you separate the story of the disbelievers from the story of the believers and not connect it like in the saying: 'Indeed, the righteous are in bliss, and indeed, the wicked are in hellfire' and other numerous verses? I say: The weight of these two stories is not like what you mentioned. The first one, in our context, is presented to mention the Book and that it is guidance for the righteous. The second was presented because the disbelievers have the characteristics of this and that. Thus, there is a distinction in purpose and style between the two sentences, and they are in a manner that does not allow for conjunction. If you say: This is if you claim that those who believe are aligned with the righteous. However, if you began with the description of the believers and then followed it with another statement about the characteristics of their opposites, it would be like those recited verses. I say: It has been established for me that the initial statement following the righteous is a form of resumption, and it is based on the assumption of a question. Thus, it is included in the ruling of the righteous, and it follows its meaning, even if it is initiated in wording; it is in reality like the one that is aligned with it. The definite article in 'those who disbelieved' may refer to a specific group, such as Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl, Al-Walid ibn Al-Mughira, and their likes, or it may refer to the general category encompassing all who are resolute in their disbelief without turning back, and others. It indicates its applicability to the resolute ones by the mention of the equality of warning and its absence upon them. 'Whether' is a noun meaning equality, and it is described as it is described by sources. From it is His saying: 'Come to a word that is equal between us and you,' and 'In four days, equal for those who ask,' meaning equal and its elevation is as a predicate for 'Indeed,' and 'Whether you warn them or do not warn them.' In the position elevated by the subjectivity, it is as if it were said: Indeed, those who disbelieved are equal upon them your warning and its absence, just as you say: Indeed, Zaid is in dispute with his brother and his cousin. Or 'Whether you warned them or did not warn them' is in the position of initiation, and 'equal' is a prior news meaning: it is equal for them your warning and its absence, and the sentence is a news for 'Indeed.' If you say: The verb is always a news and not something reported about, so how is it correct to report about it in this speech? I say: It is of the kind of speech where the aspect of wording is neglected in favor of the aspect of meaning, and we have found that the Arabs lean in some parts of their speech towards meanings distinctly, such as their saying:

Do not eat fish and drink milk. Its meaning is that you should not eat fish and drink milk. Although the apparent wording suggests an incorrect conjunction of the noun with the verb. The hamzah and 'am are both stripped of the meaning of questioning. [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'The hamzah and 'am are stripped of the meaning of questioning... etc. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The essence of this transmission is the use of the letter in its broadest meaning. The hamzah, equivalent to 'am, is originally placed for questioning about one of two interchangeable things in the absence of specific knowledge. It was then transferred to the general equivalence even if there was no questioning, and it was used in the real part. Likewise, the vocative particle is originally designated for specifying the one called upon in prayer, then it was transferred to general specification without a call, just as metaphor can be through specification and restriction, like specifying the animal with four legs even though it originally refers to everything that crawls. It can also be through generalization and extension, like naming a brave man a lion, transferring this name from a description of bravery specific to the known animal, to every entity described by that attribute not confined to its original place.] And the meaning of equivalence is their equality in the knowledge of the one being questioned about them, as it is known that one of the two matters exists, either the warning or its absence, but not specifically. Both are known by knowledge that is not specific. And it was recited: (A'ANZARTAHUM) with the two hamzah's being pronounced clearly, and the lightening is more eloquent, and with the lightening of the second being in between, and with an alif placed between them both pronounced clearly, and with it being placed and the second being in between, and with the interrogative letter omitted, and with it omitted and its movement being applied to the preceding consonant, just as (QAD AFLAH) was recited.

If you say: What do you say about someone who turns the second into an alif? I say: He is mispronouncing, deviating from the speech of the Arabs in two ways: One is the act of combining two consonants improperly - and its limit is that the first is a soft letter and the second is a letter that is assimilated, like in his saying: 'the misguided', and 'khawisah' [The term 'khawisah' is from the narration of Ziyad ibn Rabi' from Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him: 'Hasten to do good deeds before six...'. He mentioned it. In it is 'and khawisah of one of you.'] The second is the error in the way of lightening because the way to lighten the moving hamzah with a fatḥah before it is to produce it in between. As for turning it into an alif, it is lightening the stationary hamzah with a fatḥah before it, like the hamzah of 'ra's'. And the warning is the fear of Allah's punishment by deterring from sins. If you say: What is the position of 'LA YU’MINOON'? I say: It may either be a sentence affirming the sentence before it, or a news for 'inna', and the sentence before it is an interruption.