Delegation: It is specific to favor. It is said: He has delegated me, if He gives you without recompense, based on knowledge that I will give it, due to what is in me of favor and entitlement. Or based on knowledge from Allah about me and my entitlement. [Mahamud said: "Its meaning is based on knowledge from Allah about me and my entitlement..." Ahmad said: "Similarly, he says according to my worth, he hopes from Allah to reward him in the Hereafter: that the difference between the praise of this world and the praise of the Hereafter is that the praise of this world is obligatory upon the servant, because it is for a favor granted, while the praise of the Hereafter is not obligatory upon him, because it is for a favor that is obligatory upon Allah, the Exalted. And Allah has spoken the truth when He says: 'And it is a trial, from which the people of the Sunnah are saved, as they believe that the reward is by the favor and mercy of Allah, not by entitlement, and they follow in this the saying of the Master of mankind, blessings and peace be upon him: 'No one enters Paradise by his deeds.' It was said: 'Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'Not even me, unless Allah encompasses me with His mercy. How foolish is the one who deludes himself and is stubborn, thinking that he deserves Paradise from Allah.' ] Or based on my knowledge of the ways of earning, as Qarun said: 'On knowledge I have.' If you say: Why is the pronoun mentioned in 'I was given it,' which refers to the favor? I say: It is directed towards the meaning, because His saying 'a favor from Us' is a part of the favors and a division of them. It is possible that 'what' in 'Indeed, it is a trial' is a relative pronoun, not an exclusionary one, so the pronoun returns to it, meaning: that which I was given is based on knowledge, rather it is a trial, a denial of His saying, as if he said: 'What We have granted you of the favor is not as you say, rather it is a trial,' meaning: a test for you, will you be grateful or will you deny? If you say: How is the pronoun mentioned then feminized? I say: It is carried on the meaning first, and on the wording last, and because the news was feminine, meaning 'trial,' it was permissible to feminize the subject for its sake, as in their saying: 'What your need has come.' And it was read: 'Rather it is a trial' in accordance with 'Indeed, I was given it.' If you say: What is the reason for the conjunction of this verse with 'fa' and the conjunction of a similar one at the beginning of the surah with 'wa'? I say:

The reason for this is that this occurred as a consequence of His saying, "And when Allah is mentioned..." [[Mahmoud said: "If you say: Why is this verse connected to the one before it with 'fa' (so), while the verse before it at the beginning of the surah is connected with 'wa' (and)?" He answered that this verse is a consequence of His saying, 'And when Allah is mentioned...' etc." Ahmad said: "A great statement, so understand it, especially since it is a slight resemblance."]] Alone, they recoil at the meaning that they recoil from the mention of Allah and rejoice at the mention of the idols. So if one of them is touched by harm, he calls upon the one he recoils from mentioning, not the one he rejoices in mentioning, and what is between them is an objection. If you say: The right of the objection is that the objector should confirm between him and it [[The phrase 'between him and it' may be an addition from some scribes. (A)]]. I say: What is in the objection is the supplication of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, to his Lord by His command and His saying, "You judge between Your servants," then what follows it from the great warning: a confirmation of their denial of their recoiling and their rejoicing and their returning to Allah in times of hardship instead of their idols, as if it were said: Say, O Lord, do not judge between me and those who dare against You with such audacity and commit such a disgrace except You. And His saying, "And if only those who wronged had what is in the earth entirely and the like of it with it, they would surely ransom themselves with it" when He has decreed upon them a severe punishment, and these secrets and subtleties are not revealed except by the knowledge of the arrangement, otherwise they would remain concealed in their folds. As for the first verse, it did not occur as a consequence; it is merely a sentence that fits with the sentence before it and is connected to it with 'wa,' like saying: Zaid stood and Amr sat. If you say: From what aspect did it occur as a consequence? The recoiling from the mention of Allah does not imply their resorting to Him, rather it implies their turning away [[The phrase 'their turning away from Him' means: their disregard. This was clarified in the dictionaries. (A)]] from Him. I say: In this causation, there is subtlety, and its clarification is that you say: Zaid is a believer in Allah, so if harm touches him, he resorts to Him; this is a clear causation without ambiguity. Then you say: Zaid is a disbeliever in Allah, so if harm touches him, he resorts to Him, and you come with 'fa' just as you did there, as if the disbeliever, when he resorts to Allah, resorts like the believer does, maintaining his disbelief in the place of faith, and making it a cause for resorting. So you narrate what the disbeliever has reversed. Do you not see that you intend by this speech to deny and express astonishment at his action?