The cold wind is called 'sar'. [Mahamud said: "The sar is the cold wind... etc."] Ahmad said: All are valid interpretations, and the latter is the best and most appropriate. However, Al-Zamakhshari did not clarify the aspect of circumstance in the mentioned examples, and we will clarify it by saying: If you say, for example: 'In my village, Zayd is sufficient, and 'Amr is sufficient after Allah', your saying 'sufficient' establishes a mere negation devoid of specific defining constraints. Then you made the specific one, which is 'Amr', a place for it, thus specifying that absolute negation with this meaning. Therefore, it is a correct circumstance, as every restriction is a circumstance for its absolute, since the absolute is part of the restricted. So pay attention to this subtlety, for it is delicate, and Allah is the Grantor of success.

To Abu Khalid the Kharijite. It was said: to Muhammad ibn Abdullah the Azdi. It was said: to Imran ibn Hattan. It was said otherwise to him by Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a regarding his absence from the battle, and he excused himself for that. And my daughters are the subject of the increase. And I fear that poverty may reach them after my death, and this is expressed by their sight of him as a form of exaggeration, for when he feared the sight, he feared the following. It is narrated that he feared they would taste misery, meaning hardship, so he likened it to food in a figurative sense, and tasting is a form of imagination. And the murky water is turbid, and 'tarnuq' means to be turbid, and 'tarnuq' and 'arnuq' mean its turbidity, and 'tarnuq' in the active form is a source like turbidity, so it is settled, and what is meant is the turbid water. It is narrated 'zifa', meaning mixed and turbid, so the meaning is the same, thus he likened the troubled life to it, and he likened the pleasant life to clear water in a straightforward manner, and drinking is an emphasis. And 'kasi' is in the form of 'farah' which is a necessary opposite of 'urri'. It is permissible here to build it in the passive form, from 'kasi' in the transitive form like 'da'a'. And 'in' for the condition is free from doubt or means 'when'. And 'tanbu' rises above them, a metaphor for not marrying them. And 'karam' is with a pause, and it was said - with a kasra - a description of generosity that applies to the singular and plural, masculine and feminine. It is narrated 'an ram', meaning with the means, which is more fitting with the context. And 'al-ajaf' is the plural of 'ajfa', meaning emaciated, meaning he does not pay attention to them despite their being noble due to their emaciation and the wretchedness of their condition. And I have prepared my dowry: I placed upon it the tools of war and made it ready for it. It is narrated 'qad samawt mahri', and perhaps it is with a softened 'm' meaning I elevated it and mounted it, and it was said: meaning I placed upon it the signs of war, so perhaps it is inverted. And 'samat' and it is narrated 'sumat' with emphasis, which is suitable to mean I made upon it the signs of war, not that, and there is a provision from Allah, the Almighty, a sufficient person, and there is no stone in exaggeration, especially among the Arabs. And there is a type of returning to Allah and entrusting to Him, and that He is the Provider, the Strong, the Mighty. They likened what they used to spend of their wealth in noble deeds and glories and gaining praise and good mention among people, not seeking thereby the face of Allah, to the crop that the cold has touched and it has become shattered. It was said: it is what they used to draw near to Allah with while being disbelievers. It was said: what they spent in enmity against the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, was wasted on them, for they did not achieve with their spending what they spent for His sake. And they likened the planting of those who wronged themselves.

So He destroyed them as a punishment for their sins, because destruction due to anger is more severe and effective. If you say: The purpose is to liken what they spent to its lack of benefit. [Mahamud said: If you say: The purpose is to liken what they spent to its lack of benefit... etc. Ahmad said: As for the phrasing of the question, it is not appropriate due to its disrespectful tone, as the questioner assumes that the words of Allah, the Exalted, do not correspond to His intent. The proper way to ask about the words of Allah, the Exalted, is to phrase it in a clear manner of seeking guidance, not in a purely objectionable form. The correct phrase would be: What is the aspect of the correspondence of the words to the purpose? One should not be lenient in this matter. If one of us were to pose a question about the words of a respected Imam in his presence and hearing, he would be very careful in how he presented it and would avoid such phrases. Perhaps an objection to that Imam might arise that cannot be answered, so how can one be lenient in posing questions about the Book of Allah, the Exalted, in objectionable forms? One should ask about the Book of Allah, the Exalted, in a respectful manner, knowing that it is a speech from which falsehood does not approach from before it or from behind it, a revelation from the Wise, Praiseworthy. How appropriate it is to be diligent in seeking guidance and to be respectful in presenting questions. Then we return to the second answer of Al-Zamakhshari, which is his saying: 'The intended meaning is like the destruction of what they spend.' We say: This answer does not clarify the correspondence that was asked about, and the question remains. This is because the wind likened is not the destruction itself, rather it is the destroyer. There is no correspondence between the source and the name except through another interpretation, and thus this view is less likely. It is closer to say: The essence of the speech, and Allah knows best, is: The example of what they spend in this worldly life is like the example of the harvest of a people who wronged themselves, and a wind struck it and destroyed it. However, this arrangement in the mentioned example was opposed for a great benefit, which is to prioritize what is more important, because the wind, which is like the punishment, was mentioned in the context of warning and threat, and is more important than mentioning the harvest. It was thus given precedence in mention, relying on the fact that correct understandings will extract the correspondence by returning the speech to its origin in the easiest way. An example of this in altering the arrangement for such a benefit is His saying, the Exalted: (So a man and two women, from whom you approve of the witnesses, if one of them errs...) the verse. And likewise: I prepared this beam to support the wall if it leans. The original is that one should mention one of them in relation to the other if one errs, and that I support the wall if it leans, and such examples are many, and Allah is the Grantor of success.] And its loss due to the harvest that was struck by the wind, and the speech does not correspond to the purpose as it made what they spend likened to the wind.

I said: It is from the compound analogy that has been mentioned in the interpretation of His saying: (Like the example of one who kindled a fire). It may be intended: The example of the destruction of what they spend is like the destruction of the wind, or what they spend is like a destroyer of the wind, which is the harvest. And it has been recited:

You spend, with the 'taa' (feminine) meaning: Allah did not wrong them.

The pronoun refers to the spenders in the sense that Allah did not wrong them by not accepting their expenditures, but they wronged themselves by not bringing them in a manner deserving of acceptance, or for the owners of the harvest who wronged themselves, meaning: And Allah did not wrong them by destroying their harvest, but they wronged themselves by committing what they deserved punishment for. And it has been recited (but) with emphasis, meaning: But their souls wrong them. And it is not permissible to mean: But their souls wrong them, by omitting the pronoun of the subject, because it is only permissible in poetry.