In misguidance and flames, in destruction and fires. Or in misguidance from the truth in this world, and flames in the Hereafter. It has touched Sakar, as your saying: he found the touch of fever and tasted the flavor of beating. For when the fire strikes them with its heat and impregnates them with its pain, it is as if it touches them in that way, just as an animal is touched and engages with what harms and hurts it. And taste:

is intended as a saying. And Sakar: is a name for Hell. From Sakarat the fire and Saqarat it means it scorched it. Dhū al-Rumma said: When the sun melts, it avoids its scorching... with the branches of the spring-saturated trees in the sandy area. [[Dhū al-Rumma describes the wild cattle, it is said: the sun melts when its heat intensifies until drops from its rays fall like saliva, and to strike the rock with a pickaxe means to hit it with a tool to break it. And the sun scorched it means it struck it and changed its color. And the scorching of the sun means the intensity of its impact on the earth. And the branches are the plural of fanan, which is the gathering of intertwined and dense leaves on the branch.

And the spring-saturated means that which has been affected by the spring rain. And the sandy area means the sand that is scattered. And the abundant foliage means much leafiness twisted.

He says: When the heat of the sun intensifies, it avoids its severity with the branches of trees watered by the spring in this area of sand. And the abundant foliage means much leafiness. And abundant can be a substitute for spring-saturated, as if it is solid. And it is possible that it is an adjective for it, on the basis that its addition is from the addition of description to the circumstance, so it does not benefit from the definition, and it is valid to describe it with the indefinite.]

And not declining it for definition and femininity. Every thing is accusative with an implied verb that is explained by the apparent [[Mahmoud said: "Accusative with an implied verb that is explained by the apparent". Ahmad said: The norm that the grammarians established was to prefer the nominative for every thing, but no one among the seven has read it that way. This is because the speech with the nominative is one sentence, while with the accusative it is two sentences, so the nominative is shorter, even though there is no reason for the accusative here from any of the six categories, namely: command, prohibition... and so on. And I do not find here an appropriate conjunction or anything else that they consider from the places of their choice for the accusative. So when this is clear, know that the shift from the nominative was unanimously for a subtle reason that supports the choice of the accusative: that if it were raised, the sentence which is 'We created him' would be a description of something, and the raising of the saying 'with a measure' would be better than everything restricted by the description, and the speech would be on the assumption: 'We created everything for us by measure', so understand that anything created that is attributed to other than Allah, the Exalted, is not by measure. But with the accusative, the speech becomes: 'We created everything by measure', which indicates the general attribution of every creation to Allah, the Exalted. So when this benefit is not matched by the verbal benefit in the reading of the nominative, with what is in the nominative of a deficiency in meaning and what is in this widespread reading of the complete and clear meaning like the splitting of dawn, there is no doubt they all agreed to shift from the nominative to the accusative. But Al-Zamakhshari, since he was from the rule of his companions dividing the creations into the creation of Allah and the creation of other than Allah, they say: This is for Allah in their opinion, this is for us: so this verse confused him, and the consensus of the readers became a proof against him. So he began to seek refuge in misery and transferred its reading to the nominative, let him be reminded and shown the avoidance of the seven readers from this narration, even though it is the first in Arabic, were it not for what we mentioned. Is it permissible in his ruling then for the consensus to oppose the first in wording and meaning without any reason that necessitated that or not? And he is free in what he judges, and to Allah belong the matters.]] .

And it was read: every thing in the nominative. And the measure and the measure: the estimation. And it was read with both, meaning: We created every thing estimated, precise, arranged according to what wisdom necessitated. Or estimated, written in the Tablet.

Known before its being, we have known its state and its time. And our command is nothing but one, except for a single word that is quick in formation like a glance. He meant by it His saying 'Be', meaning that when He intends to create something, it does not take long for its being.