That is: and mention them. And when: is a substitute for them. And the spreading: is the spreading at night. The pronoun is gathered because he meant both of them and those who referred to them. And it was read: for their judgment. The pronoun in 'So We made it understood' refers to the ruling or the fatwa. And it was read: 'So We made it understood.' The judgment of Dawood was regarding the sheep for the owner of the field. Then Solomon, blessings and peace be upon him, who was eleven years old, said: 'This is not as accommodating for both parties.' He insisted that he should judge, and he said: 'I see that the sheep should be given to the owners of the field so they can benefit from its milk, offspring, and wool, and the field should be with the owners of the sheep to take care of it until it returns to its condition on the day it was damaged, then they can return to each other.' He said: 'The judgment is what you have judged,' and he upheld the ruling with that. If you say: Did they judge by revelation or by ijtihad? I say: They both judged by revelation, except that the ruling of Dawood was abrogated by the ruling of Solomon. It was said: They both exercised ijtihad, and the ijtihad of Solomon, blessings and peace be upon him, was closer to the truth. If you say: What is the rationale behind each of the two rulings? I say: As for the rationale of the ruling of Dawood, blessings and peace be upon him, it is because the harm that occurred to the sheep was transferred to the victim, as Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said regarding a slave who injures a soul: The master should either hand him over or ransom him. And according to Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him: He should sell him in that case or ransom him. And perhaps the value of the sheep was equivalent to the loss in the field. The rationale of the ruling of Solomon, blessings and peace be upon him, is that he made the benefit from the sheep in exchange for what was lost from the benefit of the field, without the ownership of the owner of the sheep being removed from it, and he obligated the owner of the sheep to work in the field until the harm and loss are removed, similar to what the followers of Al-Shafi'i said regarding someone who seized a slave and he escaped from him: He is liable for the value so that the one from whom he seized can benefit in exchange for what the usurper has deprived him of from the benefits of the slave. If they later return to each other, if you say: If this incident occurred in our Shari'ah, what would be its ruling? I say: Abu Hanifa and his companions, may Allah be pleased with them, do not see it as a liability at night or during the day, unless there is a driver or a leader with the animal, while Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, obligates liability at night. And in the saying 'So We made it understood' there is evidence that the more correct was with Solomon, blessings and peace be upon him. And in the saying 'And We gave both of them judgment and knowledge' there is evidence that they were both correct. 'They glorify' is a state meaning 'glorifying.' Or it is a new statement, as if someone said: How did He subjugate them? He said: 'They glorify.' And 'the birds' is either an addition to 'the mountains' or a direct object along with it. If you say: Why were the mountains mentioned before the birds? I say: Because their subjugation and glorification is more astonishing and indicative of power and more included in the miracle, because they are inanimate and the birds are living, although they do not speak. It was narrated that he would pass by the mountains glorifying and they would respond to him. It was said: They would walk with him wherever he went. If you say: How do the mountains speak and glorify? I say: By Allah creating speech in them as He created it in the tree when He spoke to Musa. Another answer is that they glorify when they see Him moving by the command of Allah, and when they were commanded to glorify, they were described by it. 'And We were capable' means we were able to do this even if it is astonishing to you. And it was said: We used to do the same with the prophets. The 'labus' means clothing. He said: 'Dress for every situation its clothing.'

This house, until the blood of the seven was taken. And al-lubus - with the opening - means clothing. And its division in the substitutes from it into bliss and misery is due to a causal relationship. It may be that it is on the omission of the added, meaning: the clothing of its bliss or the clothing of its misery. And the middle is either for variety, but the story indicates that the essence of the clothing did not change. It is permissible that al-lubus is a verbal noun even though the use of fa'ool with an opening in the verbal noun is rare. It may also be narrated with a closing, meaning the verbal noun in the majority, that is: wear for each situation what is suitable from the clothing. Either the straight clothing or the reflected. And the one commanded to wear is not with us. And al-bu's with the hamzah means hardship; its hamzah was changed here to a waw to fit the rhyme. And between al-lubus and bu's: the deficient rhyme. And what is meant is the armor. Qatadah said: It was plates, and the first to weave it and create it was Dawud. It combined lightness and fortification to protect you. It was read with the n, y, and t, with the lightening of the sad and its intensification. The n is for Allah, the Exalted, and the t is for the craft or for the clothing in the interpretation of the armor, and the y is for Dawud or for the clothing.