Is it that he is absent? He looked to the place of the hoopoe but did not see it. He said, "What is it that I do not see?" meaning that he does not see it while it is present due to something covering it or otherwise. Then it occurred to him that it was absent, so he turned away from that and began to say: "Is it absent?" as if he is asking about the validity of what has occurred to him. This is similar to their saying: "Is it camels or sheep?" And it is mentioned in the story of the hoopoe that when Solomon completed the building of the Sacred House, he prepared for pilgrimage by gathering the people. He arrived at the sanctuary and stayed there as long as he wished. He would offer every day during his stay five thousand camels, five thousand cows, and twenty thousand sheep. Then he resolved to travel to Yemen and left Mecca in the morning heading towards Suhail. He arrived in Sana'a at noon, which is a month’s journey. He saw a beautiful land that pleased him with its greenery, so he descended to have breakfast and pray, but they did not find water. The hoopoe was a guide, being knowledgeable and aware of water in the wells. The wells are the plural of qanat. He could see water beneath the ground as one sees water in a glass, and the devils would come and peel it as one peels a hide and extract the water. He missed it for that reason. When Solomon descended, the hoopoe saw a hoopoe that had fallen, so he descended to it and described to him the kingdom of Solomon and what was made subservient to him of everything. He mentioned to him his companion, the queen of Sheba, and that under her command were twelve thousand leaders, under each leader were one hundred thousand, and he went with him to see, but he did not return until after the afternoon. It is mentioned that a ray of sunlight fell on the head of Solomon, and he looked and saw the place of the hoopoe empty. He called the chief of the birds, which was the eagle, and asked him about it, but he found no knowledge with him. Then he said to the lord of the birds, which was the hawk: "Bring him to me." So it rose and looked, and there he was coming. He called upon her by Allah and said: "By the One who has empowered you and made you capable over me, do not have mercy on me." She left him and said: "May your mother lose you! The Prophet of Allah has sworn to punish you." He said: "And what did he exclude?" She said: "Yes, he said: 'Or he will bring me a clear excuse.'" When he approached Solomon, he lowered his tail and wings, dragging them on the ground in humility before him. When he got close, he took hold of his head and extended it to him. He said: "O Prophet of Allah, remember your standing before Allah." Solomon trembled and forgave him, then he asked him. His punishment was that he should be disciplined in a way that his condition could bear so that he could be a lesson for his kind. It was said that Solomon's punishment for the bird was to pluck its feathers and expose it to the sun. It was said that he would be smeared with tar and exposed to the sun. It was said that he would be thrown to the ants to be eaten. It was said that he would be placed in a cage. It was said that he would be separated from his companion. It was said that he would be made to associate with opposites. Some said: the most constricted prisons are the companionship of opposites. It was said that he would be made to serve his peers. If you say: From where is it permissible for him to punish the hoopoe? I say: It is possible that Allah permits him that due to the benefit and advantage He saw in it, just as He permitted the slaughter of animals and birds for food and other benefits. And if He made the birds subservient to him, and he could not achieve what he was made subservient for except through discipline and governance, it is permissible for him to be allowed what he can use for improvement. And it is read: "He will surely bring me" and "He will surely come to me." And the sultan is the proof and excuse. If you say: He swore on one of three things: his oath on his actions is unquestionable, but how did his oath on the action of the hoopoe become valid? And how did he know that it would come with proof, so that he says: "By Allah, it will surely bring me proof?" I say: When he organized the three with "or" in the ruling that is the oath, his words became as if to say: "One of the matters will occur," meaning: if the coming with proof occurred, there would be no punishment or slaughter, and if it did not, then one of them would occur. And there is no claim of knowledge in this, although it is possible that his oath on the two actions was a revelation from Allah that it would come to him with clear proof, thus he affirmed with his statement: "Or he will surely bring me clear proof" out of knowledge and certainty.