It is narrated that when he ordered the construction of the palace, Haman gathered the workers until fifty thousand builders were assembled, not counting the followers and laborers. He ordered the bricks and plaster to be cooked, the wood to be shaped, and the nails to be hammered. They built it until it reached a height that no construction by any of the creation had ever reached. The builder could not stand at its top to build. Then Allah, the Exalted, sent Gabriel, peace be upon him, at sunset. He struck it with his wing and broke it into three pieces: one piece fell on Pharaoh's army and killed one million men, another piece fell into the sea, and the third piece fell in the west. No one among his workers remained except that he perished. It is narrated in this story that Pharaoh ascended above it and shot an arrow towards the sky. Allah intended to test them, so it returned to him stained with blood. He said: 'I have killed the god of Moses.' At that moment, Allah sent Gabriel to demolish it, and Allah knows best about its authenticity. He intended by denying knowledge of a god other than Him to deny its existence. Its meaning is: 'I do not know for you of a god other than Me,' as Allah, the Exalted, said: 'Say,

Due to the intensity of what his imagination reached, he did not contemplate how the arrow fell. Rather, he came from the standpoint that Allah, the Exalted, often expressed the negation of the known by negating knowledge, as in His saying: "Say, 'Will you inform Allah of that which He does not know in the heavens and the earth?'" When this became consistent for him, he imagined that this expression of negating the known by negating knowledge included all knowledge, even if it did not pertain to the known as it is. However, this is not the case. This expression is only valid in the knowledge of Allah, the Exalted, regarding matters specific to ancient knowledge, which is its general connection so that nothing escapes Him. What knowledge does not pertain to its existence must not exist, for if it existed, it would be connected to it, unlike the knowledge of creation. There is no necessary connection between the negation of something and the negation of the knowledge that arises from its existence, nor is it so with ancient knowledge. For between the negation of its known and the negation of its connection to existence, there is a necessary connection that justifies the mentioned expression. However, it is known that Pharaoh claimed divinity and treated his knowledge as the knowledge of Allah, the Exalted, in that nothing escapes Him. Thus, he became arrogant and proud. He expressed the negation of his knowledge as a means of negating the known, deceiving his people and misleading their foolish minds - and Allah knows best. This arrogance is reflected in his words: "So ignite for me, O Haman, upon the clay," and he did not say: "So cook for me bricks," and that is a sign of arrogance, as Allah, the Exalted, said: "And to Him belongs greatness and pride, and whoever wears them, He will crush him." And among what they ignite in the fire seeking ornament is mentioned this comprehensive expression of types of disbelief in a manner of arrogance, belittling it. This is part of the tyranny of kings - glorified and exalted is Allah - and Pharaoh's arrogance is also evident in his calling his minister by name, with the particle of address, and placing his call amidst the command, and building the structure, and hoping to gain insight: it is evidence that he was not determined on denial. Al-Zamakhshari said: This contradicts what he showed of firm denial in his saying: "I do not know for you of a god other than me." Either this contradiction was hidden from his people due to their ignorance and dullness of minds, or they realized it and feared his wrath and persisted. Ahmad said: One might say - and Allah knows best - that his saying: "I do not know for you of a god other than me" should be understood as doubt, and the negation of his knowledge specifically, and that it is treated like other knowledge of creation in that the negation of its connection to the existence of a matter does not imply the negation of that matter, as it is possible for it to exist while being absent from his knowledge. In that case, there would be no contradiction. If this interpretation were not the original, we would not have justified removing the contradiction from his words, for it is beneath that. It is also possible that it is taken literally, and that a god other than him is unknown to him, but it is presumed based on his saying: "And indeed, I think he is among the liars." If Moses, peace be upon him, thought him a liar in asserting a god other than him and did not know him to be a liar, he must have presumed that there was a god other than him. Even if the forsaken one did not presume with certainty, but rather knew the truth of Moses' words when Moses said to him: "You have certainly known what these have brought down except for the Lord of the heavens and the earth, clear proofs," he would not have undertaken that great construction, nor would he have labored in its building as he did, perhaps hoping to gain insight into the god of Moses, peace be upon him, even though he was extremely ignorant of him and his attributes, as he thought he was in a place just as he was in a place, and that he could see him as he could see him when he sat in his high place, and that he was the king of the heavens just as he was the king of the earth. You will not find a clearer evidence of his extreme ignorance and foolishness, and the ignorance and foolishness of his people, than their attempt to reach the causes of the heavens with a structure they were building. I wonder, was he deceiving the people of his land and mocking their minds, as he encountered the most foolish of people and those most devoid of understanding, resembling them to beasts in that? Or was he in himself of that description? And if what was narrated about the arrow returning to him stained with blood is true, then he mocked him with action, just as mockery by words has been mentioned in other places in the Book of Allah regarding his counterparts among the disbelievers. It is also possible to interpret the presumption in the first saying as certainty, as in His saying:

So I said to them, 'Think of two thousand fully armed [and all the hardships of the lover I have encountered... except for a woman, I did not meet my death in the lookout.'

I advised against an adversary and the companions of the adversary... and the tribe of the black ones and the people are witnesses.

So I said to them, 'Think of two thousand fully armed... their leaders in the Persian armor.

This is regarding Duraid ibn al-Simmah, who warns his people of the enemy's attack. Duraid is Muawiyah ibn al-Harith ibn Bakr ibn Alqamah al-Juthami: he was killed as a polytheist on the day of Hunayn. That is, all the hardships that the lover faces from his beloved, I have encountered. And al-Hatf means destruction. And al-Marsad, and al-Marsad: the path, and in attributing it to himself, there is a subtle meaning, that is: I did not take a path in which there is destruction for me, but I take another one that remains without harm in it.

And I advised him and advised for him: I purified the description. And al-Shahd - with emphasis - is the plural of witness. And Dajjaja means he covered it with a covering. And al-Dajjah - with emphasis - means darkness. And al-Dajj means to walk slowly. And al-Mudajjaj means fully armed. And it was said: it is with the opening: the horse, and with the closing: the horseman.

And al-Sarāt: the noble leaders with the opening of the 's', and it originally means: the highest part of the animal's back, so it was borrowed for them. And it can be pluralized, and its weight is 'Fa'lah', the plural of 'Sari' is on an irregular measure, as its measure is 'Afdal'. And it originally means: the small river: borrowed for the good leader, and the horseman: the armors made by a horseman.

And al-Sard and al-Tasrid: following the weaving, he says: 'Be certain of the attack of a great army.' And the two thousand: is a metaphor for abundance, that is: a large army covered in armor, its nobles in the consecutive Persian armors. And the context indicates the abundance of armors for them. And it is narrated as al-Maswad with a 'waw' and it is not that.]

And the construction of the palace contradicts what he claimed of knowledge and certainty, and it was hidden from his people due to their ignorance and foolishness.

Or did it not hide from them, but rather each one feared for himself his whip and sword? He only said, 'So ignite for me, O Haman, on the clay,' and did not say: 'Cook for me the bricks and make them,' because he was the first to make bricks, so he teaches him the craft. And because this phrase is better suited to the eloquence of the Qur'an and the high status of its style and resembles the speech of tyrants.

And he commanded Haman, who is his minister and aide, to ignite on the clay, calling him by name, 'O Haman,' in the middle of the speech: a sign of glorification [the phrase 'a sign of glorification' perhaps refers to glorification. (A)] and arrogance. And it is reported from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that when he traveled to Sham and saw the palaces built with bricks, he said: 'I did not know that anyone built with bricks other than Pharaoh.' And al-Tulu' and al-Ittila' means ascent. It is said: 'The mountain rose and ascended,' meaning the same.