And the Sabeans are raised as a beginning, and its news is omitted. [Mahamud said: "In it, the Sabeans are raised as a beginning, and its news is omitted..." Ahmad said: "He is truthful; there is no question regarding this direction. However, there is a question directed, which is to say: If the Sabeans were joined and made accusative as Ibn Kathir read, it would also imply their inclusion among those who are repented for. And from the precedence of their mention over the Christians, it is understood from the raising that these Sabeans, who are the most entrenched in disbelief, are repented for. What then is the thought regarding the Christians? The speech would have been a single, concise, eloquent statement, and the conjunction would be singular. So why was there a shift to the raising and the speech made into two sentences? And does it have a benefit distinguishing it from the accusative and singular conjunction? This question is answered by saying that if it were made accusative and joined, it would not imply a specificity for this category, because all categories are joined together as singular items. This category is among them, and the news about them is one. As for with the raising, it is disconnected from the singular conjunction, and the rest of the categories remain specified by the news that is joined with it. The news of this distinct category is isolated, estimating for example, and the Sabeans likewise, so it comes as if it is measured against the rest of the categories and attached to them, and it is in this status, because when they were established after the categories of accepting repentance, they were more deserving to be made as followers and branches, resembling those who are less capable than them with this news. The benefit of the precedence over the news is that the placement of this omitted beginning between the two parts is more indicative of the omitted news than mentioning it after the speech is completed. And Allah knows best.]}

So know that we are rebels and you are likewise. If you say: Why did you not claim that its elevation is for the conjunction with the position of 'in' and its subject? I say: That is not correct before completing the news. You do not say: If Zayd and Amr are departing. If you say: Why is it not correct when the intention is for delay, it is as if you said: If Zayd is departing and Amr? I say: Because when I elevate it, I elevate it in conjunction with the position of 'in' and its subject, and the agent in their position is the beginning. Therefore, it must be the agent in the news because the beginning encompasses both parts in its action just as 'in' encompasses them in its action. If I elevated the Sabeans, intending delay by the beginning, and I have elevated the news with 'that', I would have employed two different agents in them. If you say: Then his saying 'and the Sabeans' must have a conjunction, what is it? I say: It is with its omitted news, a clause conjoined to the clause of his saying: 'Indeed, those who have believed...' and it has no position, just as the one it conjoined to has no position. If you say: What is the purpose of the precedence and delay, what is the benefit of this precedence? I say: Its benefit is to indicate that the Sabeans are accepted if faith and righteous deeds are valid from them, so what do you think of others? This is because the Sabeans are the clearest among those counted as misguided and the most severe in error. They are called Sabeans only because they have departed from all religions, meaning they have exited, just as the poet preceded his saying 'and you' to indicate that the addressed are included in the description of rebels from his people, as he hastened it before the news which is 'rebels' so that his people do not enter into rebellion before them, while they are included in it and he has firmly established it. If you say: If it were said 'and the Sabeans and you', the precedence would have occurred. I say: If it were said like this, it would not be from precedence at all, because there is no removal from its position. Rather, it is said that something is advanced and something is delayed for what is removed from its place, not for what is fixed in its place.

And the flow of this clause is like an objection in speech. If you say: How did he say: 'those who have believed' then said: 'whoever has believed'? I say: There are two aspects. One is that 'those who have believed' refers to those who have believed with their tongues, and they are the hypocrites, and 'whoever has believed' refers to one who has remained steadfast in faith and has not been overcome by doubt in it. If you say: What is the position of 'whoever has believed'? I say: It is either raised as a beginning with its news 'there is no fear upon them' and the 'fa' (and) implies the meaning of condition, then the clause remains as the news of 'if', or it is in the accusative as a substitute for the name of 'in' and what is conjoined to it, or from the one that is conjoined to it. If you say: Where is the reference to the name of 'in'? I say: It is omitted, its estimation is 'whoever has believed from them', as has come in another place. And it has been read: 'and the Sabeans', with a clear 'ya', and it is from the easing of the hamza, like the reading of one who read: 'mocking'. And 'the Sabeans' is from 'saba', because they have inclined towards following desires and passions in their religion and have not followed the proofs of reason and hearing. And in the reading of Abu, may Allah be pleased with him: 'and the Sabeans', in the accusative. And with it Ibn Kathir read. And Abdullah read: 'O you who have believed and those who are Jews and the Sabeans.'