Indeed, 'In' is a negation, meaning: in what we have enabled you in, except that 'In' is better in wording, for it combines what is like it from the unpleasant repetition. And similarly, it is avoided; do you not see that the original in 'whatever' is: 'mamaz' due to the ugliness of the repetition: they turned the alif into a ha. And indeed, Abu al-Tayyib was helped in his saying: 'By your life, whatever has appeared from you to the striker...' He says: 'By your life, what has appeared from you to the striker, meaning the spear, is not faster in killing than what has appeared from you to the critic, meaning the tongue; rather, they are equal in sharpness. And it is possible that he borrowed killing for striking explicitly.' And what harm would it have done him if he had followed the sweetness of the wording of the revelation and said: 'By your life, whatever has appeared from you to the striker...' Ahmad said: 'The verse of al-Mutanabbi is not as he recited it, but rather as it is narrated: 'By your life, indeed what has appeared from you to the striker... is more lethal than what has appeared from you to the critic.' And it is only correct this way because before it: 'He is the son of the Messenger of Allah and the son of His chosen one... and I have compared them after experiences.' This is from a poem in which he praises Tahir ibn al-Husayn al-Alawi. If only Abu al-Tayyib had replaced 'what' with 'if,' the verse would have come: 'He sees that if what has appeared from you to the striker...' And this repetition is heavier than the repetition of 'what' without a doubt. And al-Zamakhshari refuted him and obliged him to use 'if' instead of 'what' because he believes that the verse is as he recited it: 'By your life, whatever has appeared from you to the striker... is more lethal than what has appeared from you to the critic.' And if he had replaced 'if' instead of 'what' as al-Zamakhshari corrected it: it would necessitate the entry of 'ba' in the news of 'what.' And 'ba' only enters in the news of the working 'what' of Hijaz, and 'if' does not work like 'what' correctly, so the entry of 'ba' in its news does not stand. Al-Mutanabbi did not deviate from that except for its difficulty from every aspect. Although I do not absolve al-Mutanabbi from arrogance, for he was inclined to it, enamored with the strange in poetry. And al-Zamakhshari mentioned another interpretation of the verse: and that is to make it a connection like in his saying: 'A person hopes for what he does not see... and calamities stand between him and its least.' He said: 'And its meaning in this is that we enabled them in what we enabled you...' I said: 'And this group is specifically addressed by His saying: 'And they said, who is stronger than us in power? Did they not see that Allah, who created them, is stronger than them in power?' And His saying: 'We enabled them in the earth what We did not enable you.' And I have made 'if' a connection, like in what al-Akhfash recited: 'A person hopes for what he does not see... and calamities stand between him and its least.' And what does the greedy person know what he will encounter... the sharashir, does he err or does he succeed? For Jabir ibn Ralan al-Ta'i. And it was said: no, Yas ibn al-Art. And the sharashir is the plural of sharshar, which are the edges of the thing that are frayed, meaning: spread out, and it is used for the body and for weight, and it is a metaphor for the soul as here. And it was said: they are the fishing lines. He says: 'If he is stingy, then life is sweet for him like the sweetness of honey mixed with water to remove its heat, and he has included in 'sweet' the meaning of beloved, so he has made it to.' Then he said: 'But there is no good in holding back, for a person hopes for the absent matter from him. And the horrors of death or the hardships of time stand between him and the least of it. And 'if' is extra after the relative 'what' carrying on the negating 'what,' and what does the one who has devoted himself entirely to the world know the consequences of his matter, is it ease or loss? And since they are fishing lines, there is a metaphorical representation in the speech where the state of one who has taken the causes of the matter while ignorant of its consequences is likened to one who has set the lines for fishing, having caught.

And it is interpreted as 'We established them in that which We established you in': and the preferred meaning is the first. And indeed, there has come upon it other verses in the Qur'an, 'They are better in furnishings and appearance.' They were more than them and stronger and had more remnants, and it is more eloquent in reproach and more inclusive in urging reflection on something, that is, on something of enrichment, which is little of it. If you say, 'By what did it stand when they were denying?' I say: by His saying, 'So what did it avail?' If you say, 'Why did it take the form of reasoning?' I say: because the meaning of reasoning and the circumstance is equal in your saying: 'I struck him for his wrongdoing' and 'I struck him when he did wrong,' because if you struck him at the time of his wrongdoing, then you struck him for the existence of his wrongdoing at that time. However, 'when' and 'where' have predominated over other circumstances in that.