He gathers them. He says. Both of them with the letter 'noon' and 'ya'. And it was read: He gathers them, with a kasra on the 'sheen' and what they worship. He means: the worshipped ones from the angels, the Messiah, and Uzair. And from Al-Kalbi: the idols are made to speak by Allah. It may be that it is general for all of them. If you say: How is it correct to use 'what' for rational beings? I say: It is used generally for rational beings and others, as evidenced by your saying - if you see a shadow from afar -: What is it? If it is said to you: A human, you then say: Who is he? This is indicated by their saying 'who' for what has reason. Or it is intended by the description, as if it were said: And their deities.

Do you not see that you say when you want to ask about a characteristic of Zayd: What is Zayd? You mean: Is he tall or short? Is he a jurist or a doctor? If you say: What is the benefit of you and them? Why not say: Did you mislead My servants, these ones, or did they mislead themselves?

I say: The question is not about the action and its existence, for if it were not for its existence, this reproach would not be directed. Rather, it is about its overseer, so it is necessary to mention him and give the question mark, so that it is known that he is the one being asked about. If you say:

But Allah, the Exalted, has preceded His knowledge of the one being asked about, what is the benefit of this question? I say: Its benefit is that they respond with what they have responded, so that their worshippers are rebuked by their denial of them, and they are astonished and confused, and their regret increases. This will be a type of what befalls them from the anger and punishment of Allah. The believers will rejoice and be happy with their state and their salvation from the disgrace of those. And this narration in the Qur'an is a kindness to those obligated. And there is a break in the speech for the saying of those who claim that Allah misleads His servants in reality.

Mahamud said: In this verse, there is a break for those who claim that Allah truly misleads His servants, as He says to the worshipped ones besides Him: Did you mislead My servants, these ones, or did they mislead themselves? They will disassociate themselves from them and seek refuge from what has been attributed to them, and they will say: Rather, Your favor upon these made them consider the offering of thanks as disbelief. When the angels and messengers disassociate themselves from that, they are for Allah more disavowing and purifying than that. They indeed glorified Him when they attributed the favor of the blessing to Allah, the Exalted, and ascribed the misguidance that resulted from it to the misguided. This explains the figurative attribution in His saying: He misleads whom He wills. If He were truly a misleader, the expected response would be that they say: Rather, You misled them. Ahmad said: The explanation of the belief of the people of truth in this matter has already been mentioned, and the reason for their belief that misguidance is created by Allah is their adherence to pure monotheism and absolute faith, which is proven to be correct after rational evidence by His saying: Allah is the Creator of all things, and misguidance is a thing, so it must be His creation. This is from the perspective of generality. As for from the perspective of specificity, there are examples like His saying: He misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills, and the original is the reality. And the saying of Moses, peace be upon him: It is nothing but Your trial; You mislead by it whom You will and guide whom You will. If misguidance were impossible for Allah, it would not be permissible for the speaker to address Him with what is not permissible. If this is clarified, then the angels were not asked in this verse about the one who misleads their servants in reality, so it is said to them:

Who has led these astray? And it was said to them: Did you lead them astray, or did they themselves go astray? The appropriate answer is not that they say: You led them astray. If their belief were that Allah, the Exalted, is the one who truly leads astray, their response to this question would be: Rather, you led them astray, which would exceed the bounds of the question and its context. This answer would only be appropriate if they were asked: Who has led My servants astray? It has become clear that this question is to be answered based on what al-Zamakhshari imagined, assuming that their belief is that Allah, the Exalted, is the one who led them astray, and that their enemy in this matter is not because they do not believe in Him, but because it does not correspond. Beyond that, there remains a consideration that their response indicates their belief in accordance with the people of truth. The people of truth believe that although Allah, the Exalted, created for them misguidance, they have a choice in it and a distinction for it. They are not compelled to it as they are compelled to many actions that Allah creates in them, such as involuntary movements and the like. We have previously stated in various places that every voluntary action has two attributions: if considered as created, it is attributed to Allah, the Exalted; and if considered as voluntary for the servant, it is attributed to the servant. Thus, the angels clarified in their saying: Rather, You have granted them and their forefathers until they forgot the remembrance. They attributed the forgetting of the remembrance to them, meaning the immersion in desires that resulted in forgetting, because they chose it for themselves, so its attribution to them is valid. They attributed the cause that led to their forgetting and their immersion in desires to Allah, the Exalted: it is His granting of blessings upon them, in which they went astray. There is no contradiction between the belief of the people of truth and the content of the angels' words at that time. Rather, they are in agreement on one matter, and Allah knows best. When He says to the deities besides Him: Did you lead them astray, or did they go astray by themselves? They disown leading them astray and seek refuge with Him from being misleaders. They say: Rather, You have favored them without any prior claim over these and their forefathers, as a generous benefactor. They made the blessing, which should be a cause for gratitude, a cause for disbelief and forgetting the remembrance, and that was the cause of their destruction. So when the angels and the messengers disowned the attribution of misguidance, which is the work of the devils, to themselves and sought refuge from it, they are even more innocent and exalted from it for their Lord, the Self-Sufficient, the Just. They indeed exalted Him when they attributed to Him the favor of the blessing and the enjoyment of it, and they ascribed the forgetting of the remembrance and the resulting destruction to the disbelievers. They explained the misguidance that Allah, the Exalted, attributed to Himself in His saying: He leads astray whom He wills. If He were the one who truly leads astray, the appropriate response would be that they say: Rather, You led them astray. The meaning is: Did you cause them to fall into misguidance from the path of truth? Or did they go astray from it by themselves? And 'went astray' is the passive form of 'led astray.' The norm would be: went astray from the path, except they omitted the preposition as they did in 'guided the path.' The original is: to the path, and for the path. Their saying: 'He led the camel astray' means: made it lost, as it is often due to the negligence of its owner and a lack of caution in preserving it. It is said: He led it astray, whether there was an action from him or not. Glorified are You! They are astonished at them; they were astonished at what was said to them because they are angels and prophets who are infallible. How far removed they are from the misguidance that is specific to Iblis and his party.

Or they uttered 'Subhanak' to indicate that they are the glorifiers, the sanctified, who are marked as such. So how is it fitting for their state to mislead Your servants? Or they intended by it to glorify Him from having rivals, and that He should have a prophet or a king or anyone else as a rival. Then they said: It would not be correct for us, nor would it be proper, while we are infallible, to take anyone as a protector besides You. So how can it be correct for us to compel others to take us as protectors instead of You? Or should it not be appropriate for us to be like the devils in taking the disbelievers as protectors, just as the disbelievers took them? Allah, the Exalted, said: 'So fight the allies of Satan,' referring to the disbelievers. And He said: 'And those who disbelieved, their allies are the tyrants.' Abu Ja'far al-Madani read: 'We take,' in the passive form. This verb, meaning 'to take,' can be transitive to one object, as in saying: 'He took a protector,' and to two objects, as in saying: 'He took so-and-so as a protector.' Allah, the Exalted, said: 'Or did they take deities from the earth?' And He said: 'And Allah took Ibrahim as a friend.' So the first reading is transitive to one, which is 'from the allies,' and the original is: 'that we take allies,' and 'from' was added to emphasize the meaning of negation. The second is transitive to two objects. So the first is what the verb was built for, and the second is 'from the allies.' And 'from' is for partitive, meaning: we do not take some allies. The indefinite 'allies' is because they are specific allies, namely the jinn and the idols, and the mention refers to the mention of Allah and belief in Him, or the Qur'an and the laws. And 'the ruin' refers to destruction, which can describe both singular and plural. It may also be a plural of 'bair,' like 'a'id and 'awdh.'