The Creator of the heavens is read with both the nominative and genitive cases. The nominative is understood as one of the news of that, or as the news of a deleted subject. The genitive is understood as: 'So its judgment is to Allah, the Creator of the heavens,' and that is an interruption between the description and the described. He made for you from your own selves pairs of your kind from among people, and from the animals pairs, meaning: He created pairs from the animals as well. Its meaning is: and He also created pairs for the animals from themselves to increase you. It is said: Allah created the creation: He spread them and increased them. The terms 'creation,' 'to create,' and 'to increase' are related in this arrangement, which is that He made pairs for both people and animals, so that there would be procreation and reproduction between their males and females. The pronoun in 'He increases you' refers back to the addressees and the animals, giving preference to the rational addressees over the unseen, which does not have reason. This is from the rulings that have two causes. [Mahamud said: 'The connected pronoun in

His words have ended. Ahmad said: This second view is rejected due to its deficiency in meaning. What is appropriate here is the confirmation of the negation of similarity. The 'kaf' in this view only confirms similarity, and there is a difference between confirming the negation of similarity and confirming similarity that is negated. The negation of similarity that is unconfirmed is more profound and certain in meaning than the negation of similarity that is accompanied by confirmation. For the unconfirmed negation of similarity necessitates the negation of every similarity. However, the negation of a confirmed similarity does not necessitate the negation of a lesser similarity in confirmation and reality. When the 'kaf' is mentioned to confirm similarity, it is in the context of affirmation, thus the consideration of the verse from these two perspectives is not correct, and Allah knows best. What guides to the correctness of what I have mentioned is that the speaker can say: Zaid is not similar to Amr, but is like him. If this were reversed, it would not be correct. This is because the negation of the least similarity necessitates the negation of the greatest similarity, while the negation of the greatest similarity does not necessitate the negation of the least. Whenever the comparison is confirmed, it falls short of exaggeration. The first view he mentioned is the correct view in the verse according to him, and he introduced the weakness of this second view by saying: 'You may claim,' so understand. The intention is towards His purity and goodness. When it is known that it is a matter of metaphor, there is no difference between saying: 'There is nothing like Allah,' and saying: 'There is nothing like Him,' except for what the metaphor provides in its benefit. They are as if they are two expressions following one meaning: which is the negation of similarity from His essence. An example of this is His saying, glorified and exalted is He: 'Rather, His two hands are outstretched.' Its meaning is: 'Rather, He is generous without the conception of a hand or extension for it,' because it has occurred as an expression of generosity and does not intend anything else, to the extent that they have used it for one who has no hand. Likewise, this has been used for one who has a likeness and one who does not have a likeness. [Narrated by Ibn Abdul Rahman Ibn Muwaheb, the ally of Banu Zahra, from his father: Mukharramah Ibn Nufail narrated to me the hadith of the watering of Abdul Muttalib, but it does not include the pure and good intention. It was narrated by Al-Tabarani and Abu Na'im in the proofs from the hadith of Urwah Ibn Masrif from Mukharramah Ibn Nufail from his mother Raqiqah bint Abu Sayfi Ibn Hashim, who was the mother of Abdul Muttalib. She said: 'Years of drought followed upon Quraysh - the hadith is lengthy.' We narrated it in the part of Abu Al-Sakin. 'Note': Raqiqah bint Sayfi occurred, and the correct is bint Abu Sayfi.] And you may claim that the word of comparison was repeated for emphasis, as it was repeated by the one who said: 'And the remnants are like what they are described.' [Nothing remains of its signs except ashes and thick bones, and no good remains except a good or two, and remnants are like what they are described.] For the Khitam Al-Majashi'i. The 'ayah' is singular of 'ayat,' meaning: a sign. 'Yahlin' is the present tense built for the unknown, from 'halaytuh' to describe its adornment. He says: 'Nothing remains of the signs of these abodes that remind of their description except ashes and piled-up bones.' And the 'kashf' - with the vowel - is like 'sabab': the gathered. Perhaps it was settled for the weight. It was narrated: 'Nothing remains except ashes and Khitam Kithfin.' The 'khitam' is the bridle. It is narrated with the unpointed letter, which is what has broken and shattered from dry wood. The 'kithf' - like 'haml' - is a container for grazing, so 'Kithfin' is without the conjunction. It was said to replace what preceded it. The most appropriate is to narrate it as 'Khitam Kithfin' in addition, for the sake of matching the rhymes, meaning: 'And a bond of two containers,' and the tool of exception was repeated for emphasis. The 'wad' is originally 'wad,' so the 'ta' was changed to 'dal' and merged into the other at Tamim as an irregularity. The 'jadal' is the upright and thick, meaning: 'Nothing remained except an upright stake with it or two stakes, nothing else, as there was no doubt except in that. The 'salayat' is an adjective for the 'ithaf.' It was said: an adjective for the women who kindle the fire. It was said: an adjective for the horses that are swift for war like the 'ithaf' that are swift for the fire, but they do not suit the description of the house being empty. The 'ithaf' is the stone of the cooking pot, its weight is 'af' in origin, and its plural is 'ithaf.' 'Ithaf' for the pot: it was placed on the 'ithaf.' 'Thafaytuha' means: I placed it on the 'ithaf.' And His saying:

The verb 'yu'athifin' is a present tense form built in the passive voice. It has come in its original form with a hamzah, like 'yu'akkir' with the hamzah. This indicates that 'salihat' is an attribute of the stones that are associated with the burning fire. Perhaps women are likened to the 'athafi' due to their ugliness and darkness, with the abundance of smoke and their association with fire.

Thus, the meaning is: and righteous women are like stones that are placed under the pot. The 'ma' is a relative pronoun referring to the stones, not a source or a negation. The 'ka' of comparison is repeated for emphasis, but the second instance is a noun meaning 'like', because the preposition does not enter upon such. It may be that the letter was repeated without reintroducing the noun in an irregular manner. It is narrated after the saying 'and righteous...' etc.

'They do not complain of any work that they have cleaned... as long as there is brain in the skull or eye.'

This suits the saying that it is a description of women or horses according to the previous comparison. 'Inqaa' refers to the abundance of 'naq' with a kasrah, which is the brain. It is said: 'Anqat al-ibil' if they become fat and their brain increases, meaning: they do not complain of work during their period of fattening and cleaning, and this is explained by the saying: 'as long as there is brain...' etc. 'Salamat' refers to the bones of the fingers, and they and the eye are the last parts where the brain remains. It is also narrated like this:

'People have recognized the house by the two graves... and righteous women like those that are placed.'

The 'ghurayan' refers to a long structure. It is said: they are the graves of Malik and Aqil, the companions of Jadhima the Abresh, named so because al-Nu'man used to incite them when he wanted to kill them if they went out on the day of his misfortune. It is more likely that this is from the mixing of the narrator, and that 'salihat' refers to the stones. And the saying 'they do not complain...' etc. is not from this verse, so it should not be narrated with it, and it is that which describes horses, or the essence of women, not the righteous.

It is permissible that the verse is like this:

'People have recognized the house by the two graves... there remains no sign in it that adorns.'

And that the saying 'they do not complain...' etc. is from another place of that verse in the description of horses, as narrated by the author of al-Kafi as a witness to the equal in the rhyme like this:

'Daughters of the ground on the cheek of the night... they do not complain of any work that they have cleaned.'

Due to the difference in the letters of the rhyme. 'Wataa' - with a dammah and shaddah - is from treading on the ground. 'Cheek of the night' refers to the path that is only traversed therein. Some have said that this is in the description of horses, and that it is from the divided musarrah that is paused. And if it is in the description of the best, meaning: the mounts are daughters of camels or stallions, 'wataa' is the plural of 'waat' or 'waati'a', on the cheek of the night: a metaphor for their strength in running, until it seems as if they overcome the night, so it retreats and they tread on its cheek, thus they do not care about it.

And one who said:

'And it became like chaff that has been eaten.'

'Yesterday it was in hoped-for ease... and it became like chaff that has been eaten.'

It is narrated for the vision of its replacement:

'And birds played with them in flocks... so they became like chaff that has been eaten.'

He says: yesterday, meaning: in the recent past, those abodes were like in ease, meaning: fertility and abundance of wealth and richness, hoped for that, meaning: desired by people, and the word of comparison is repeated for emphasis. 'Chaff' is what is on the grain and on the stalk of the plant from the fig and the dry leaves, 'eaten' means it has been affected by eating, which is the worm. And it was eaten by the animals and then it was scattered. 'Ababil' means scattered groups, an attribute of birds, and it is a collective noun with no singular form from its wording. It is said: its singular is 'abul' like 'ajul'. It is said: 'ibaal' like 'miskeen'. And the saying of the vision 'they became' with emphasis and in the passive form, and perhaps this is a verse different from that.