'That' in His saying 'that you should worship Allah' [Mahamud said: 'If you consider it as an explanation, it must have an interpreter...'] Ahmad said: 'Some have permitted the occurrence of 'that' as an explanation after the word of saying, and it is not limited to what is in its meaning. Therefore, it is permissible, according to this saying, for it to occur as an explanation of the act of saying. Al-Zamakhshari, however, denied its occurrence except after an action in the meaning of saying, as is his view here.'] If you consider it as an explanation, it must have an interpreter. The interpreter is either an act of saying or an act of command, and neither is valid. As for the act of saying, the speech is narrated after it without an intervening word of explanation. You do not say: 'I did not say to them except that you should worship Allah.' But: 'I did not say to them except worship Allah.' As for the act of command, it is attributed to the pronoun of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. If you interpreted it as 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord,' it would not be correct because Allah, the Exalted, does not say: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' And if you consider it as connected to the action [he returned to his words. He said: 'As for the act of command, it is attributed to the pronoun of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic...'] Ahmad said: 'This way is also permissible by directing the explanation to the meaning, as if he narrated the meaning of Allah, the Exalted, to him in another expression, as if Allah, the Exalted, said to him:'

He means by his saying: "Worship Allah, the Lord of Jesus and your Lord." When Jesus, peace be upon him, conveyed this, he said: "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." He referred to His apparent name with His pronoun, as Allah, glorified and exalted is He, said in the account of Moses: "He said: 'Its knowledge is with my Lord in a Book; my Lord does not err and does not forget, He who made for you the earth a resting place and made for you in it paths and sent down from the heaven water, so We brought forth thereby pairs of various plants.'" Look how the beginning of the speech is a narration of Moses's words, and Moses does not say: 'So We brought forth,' but rather 'So Allah brought forth.' When Allah, glorified and exalted is He, narrated this from Moses, He returned the speech to Himself and attributed the bringing forth to His own self in the manner of the speaker, not the narrator. Likewise, His saying: "They will surely say: 'The Almighty, the All-Knowing created them,'" up to His saying: "So We brought forth thereby a dead city," and similar instances are many. I have presented something of this discussion in the account of the Jews when they said: "Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah," when Al-Zamakhshari found it improbable that the Jews would describe him with these attributes that contradict their belief in him. It is not free from being an alternative to what You commanded me with, or from the pronoun. He returned to his words. He said: "And if you made it a relative with the command verb..." Ahmad said: that is, it cannot be determined by worship but by commanding it, as if it were said: 'I said to them only to command worship of Allah,' and the command is attributed to what I said, on the basis that making worship a saying is not far-fetched, in the manner of "Then they return to what they said," meaning to the act they spoke of. And like His saying: "And We will inherit him what he says and he will come to us alone." This usage will be validated as it frequently occurs in the Noble Qur'an. In it, both are not correct because the alternative is that which takes the place of the original. It cannot be said: 'I did not say to them except to worship Allah,' meaning I did not say to them except His worship, because worship cannot be said. Likewise, if you made it an alternative to the pronoun, he returned to his words. He said: "And likewise if you made it an alternative to the pronoun because you..." Ahmad said: this also does not prevent the alternative, but the author is faced with what he cannot deny. He has said in his detailed work what is as follows: Their saying that the alternative is in the status of removing the first indicates their independence by itself and its separation from the emphasis and description in being two names for what follows it, not that they mean discarding the first and disregarding it. Do you not see how you say: 'I saw Zaid's boy, a good man,' if you were to disregard the first, your speech would not be supported. Look how he refutes his words in the detailed work, and the truth is what he has committed by rejecting the alternative in this verse, due to the necessity of discarding the first, so the connection would be void of the pronoun. And this amount did not prevent it in the mentioned example. Although if you discarded the first, the news would be devoid of the returning pronoun and the speech would not be supported. These are four aspects he has prevented in the parsing of "that" and all are supported as we have explained. This debate in this parsing is among the rare and intricate matters in the craft of parsing and the science of rhetoric. The knights of this field are few.

And it is surprising that the matter is a division of speech, and there is nothing between them except generality and specificity. And there is nothing in this interpretation that he has taken except a burden with no benefit behind it. If the Arabs were to reject the occurrence of the explanation after the saying, they would not have placed it after an action that is not a saying. Then they expressed that action with the saying because it is like returning to what one fled from, and they are far from that. I say that the action of saying should be taken in its meaning because the meaning of (ما قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلَّا ما أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ) is that I did not command them except with what You commanded me, so that its interpretation remains correct, which is to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And it is possible that 'أن' is relative. His words continued: And it is possible that 'أن' is relative... etc. Ahmad said: He means by making it an appositive to be free from the estimation of discarding the first in the substitution and the absence of the connection at that time from the return. And we have clarified that this is not necessary in the substitution. And it is surprising that he also did not differentiate in his explanation between the appositive and the substitution, except in the like of the saying of Al-Marar: I am the son of the one who abandoned the Bakri, Bashar. Because if he made it a substitution, it would necessitate the repetition of the doer, and the addition of the active participle known with the definite article to the proper noun, and he did not differentiate between them in other than this example. And from the standpoint of meaning, the reliance is on the first appositive. As for the second, it is for clarification. And the reliance is on the second substitution.

As for the first, it is a basis for mentioning him, not as something discarded or wasted. This is an explanatory conjunction for the pronoun, not a substitution. And I was a witness over them, a guardian, like the witness over the one being witnessed against. I prevented them from saying that and adhering to it. So when You took me, You were the guardian over them, preventing them from saying it by the evidence You established for them, and the clear signs You sent down upon them, and the messengers You sent to them. If You punish them, indeed, they are Your servants whom You know to be sinful, denying Your signs, and disbelieving in Your prophets. And if You forgive them, indeed, You are the Mighty, the Powerful, able to reward and punish, the Wise, who does not reward or punish except with wisdom and correctness. If you say: Forgiveness is not for disbelievers, then how did He say: 'And if You forgive them'? Mahmoud said, 'If you say forgiveness is not for disbelievers, then how did He say: And if You forgive them...?' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Al-Zamakhshari wavered in this matter, neither aligning with the people of the Sunnah nor with the Qadariyyah. As for the people of the Sunnah, forgiveness for the disbeliever is permissible for them in the judgment of Allah, may He be exalted, by reason. Indeed, the punishment of the pious believer is also not impossible by reason from Allah, may He be exalted. If that is the case, then this statement is based on rational permissibility, even if the texts indicate the punishment of disbelievers and the non-forgiveness of them. However, the occurrence of the texts does not negate rational permissibility. As for the Qadariyyah, they claim that forgiveness for the disbeliever is impossible by reason, and it is not permissible for Allah, may He be exalted, due to its contradiction with wisdom. Thus, this verse refutes them, for if the matter were as they claim, the word 'if' used in the context of doubt regarding the occurrence of the action would not linguistically apply to an action that there is no doubt about its non-occurrence by reason. It would be like saying that tar turns white and similar things. This is not the place for that. Therefore, Al-Zamakhshari's saying, 'If You forgive them,' does not lack a rational basis for forgiveness because pardoning the criminal is good by reason, which does not align with the principles of the Sunnah, as they do not take into account rational improvement. It also does not align with the inclinations of the Qadariyyah, as they assert that there is no rational basis for forgiveness for the disbeliever, and they are certain that it contradicts wisdom. So how could Allah, may He be exalted, address them with this? It is known that Jesus, peace be upon him, disassociates himself from this generalization and from what it contains of bad manners. For the saying of someone to whom he addresses: 'What did he do such and such?' does not lack an excuse and a reason for benefit; it is a statement that is lowly and a phrase that falls short of the highest levels of etiquette, which is usually uttered by the speaker to someone beneath him. We ask Allah for guidance in manners and to avoid what in their offense contains pitfalls of destruction. I say: He did not say, 'Indeed, You forgive them,' but he built the speech on: 'If You forgive.' He said: 'If You punish them, You are just, for they are deserving of punishment. And if You forgive them despite their disbelief, there is no lack of a rational basis for forgiveness, for forgiveness is good for every criminal in reason. Indeed, the greater the crime, the better the pardon for it.