And likewise, such is the adornment, which is the adornment of polytheism in the division of the offering between Allah, the Exalted, and the deities. Or, such is that eloquent adornment, which is a sign from the devils. The meaning is that their partners from the devils, or from the keepers of the idols, beautified for them the killing of their children. Mahmoud said: 'The meaning is that their partners from the devils or from the keepers of the idols beautified for them the killing of their children... etc.' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'The author has taken a blind path in this chapter and has strayed in confusion. I declare my innocence to Allah and absolve the bearers of His Book and the protectors of His words from what he has accused them of.' For he imagined that the readers of the seven readings each chose a letter they read by their own reasoning, not by transmission and hearing. Therefore, Ibn Amer erred in his reading of this, and he began to clarify that the reason for his error was his seeing the letter 'ya' firmly established in their partners, and he deduced from that that it is genitive, and it was determined for him to read 'their children' in the accusative by analogy, since the source cannot be added to two things together. So he read it in the accusative. The author said: 'He had an alternative to read it in the genitive by addition and to replace 'partners' with it, and that would have been preferable to what Ibn Amer committed by separating between the added and the addition, which is ugly in poetry, let alone in prose, let alone in the miraculous.' All of this, as you see, is a misconception from Al-Zamakhshari that Ibn Amer read this reading based on his own opinion, while the correct understanding is the opposite, and the eloquent reading is otherwise. Al-Zamakhshari did not realize that this reading, with 'their children' in the accusative and the action between the added and the addition, is necessarily known to be that the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, read it to Gabriel as it was revealed to him, and then the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, recited it through the number of transmission from the imams, and the number of transmission has continued to convey it and read it from one generation to the next until it reached Ibn Amer, who also read it as he heard it. This is the belief of the people of truth regarding all seven readings that they are transmitted in totality and in detail from the most eloquent one who spoke with the letter 'dad', blessings and peace be upon him.

So when you know the correct belief, there is no concern thereafter for the words of Al-Zamakhshari, nor for the words of those like him who criticized Ibn Amer, for the objection against him is only that he denied what has been firmly established that he is innocent of it, certainly and necessarily. Were it not for the excuse that the objector is not from the people of the two sciences, namely the science of reading and the science of principles, nor is he counted among those mentioned in the two arts, he would fear falling out of the bounds of religion. And on this excuse, he is in a dangerous position and a reprehensible slip that exceeds the slip of one who thinks that the details of the seven readings contain what is not transmitted, for this speaker has not established them except by transmission.

His utmost claim is that he alleged that transmission does not require it to be mutawatir. As for Al-Zamakhshari, he thought that it is established by opinion and is not dependent on transmission.

And no one among the Muslims has said this. What led him to this imagination except the exaggeration in believing in the consistency of grammatical analogies, so he thought they were definitive until they reject what contradicts them. Then if he descends with him to the consistency of the analogy he claimed to be consistent, Ibn Amer's reading does not contradict it. This is because the separation between the added and the addition, although it is difficult, yet if the source is added to its action, it is understood by the action, and with this understanding, it is acted upon, and it is not that its addition is not pure, but it is likened to what its addition is not pure until some grammarians said:

His addition is not purely for that. The result is that its connection to the added entity is not like the connection of others. There has come a distinction between the non-verbal addition and the added entity by the circumstance, so at the very least, the source should be distinguished from others due to what we have explained about its detachment in estimation and its lack of deep connection, such that it is separated from the added entity by something that is not foreign to it. It is as if, in estimation, it is a separation in action. Then the object is presented before the subject, and it is added to the subject while the object remains in its place at the time of separation. This is also made easier by the differing states of the source, as sometimes it is added to the subject and sometimes it is added to the object. Some have committed to the exclusivity of the allowance for separation with the object between it and the subject due to its occurrence outside of its rank, as it is intended for delay, so it is as if it has not been separated. Just as it is permissible for the pronoun to precede the explicit when it settles outside of its rank, because the intention is for delay. Abu Ubaidah recited:

"So they trampled them down like the trampling of the harvest trampler."

He also recited:

"He rubs the grain of the ear of corn with the ground, like the rubbing of cotton by the cotton ginners."

So, as you see, there is a separation between the source and the subject with the object. Among what strengthens its lack of deep connection in addition is the permissibility of conjunction on the place of its genitive in both nominative and accusative. All of these are points supported by established rules, with evidence from the analogies of the Arabic language. They unify the grammatical laws for this reading, and our aim is not to correct the reading by the rules of Arabic, but to correct the rules of Arabic by the reading. This amount is sufficient, if Allah wills, in bringing them together, and Allah is the Grantor of success. What we have conducted in the context of the speech regarding the approximation of the addition of the source from the non-purely is only intended to join it with others of the aspects that indicate through their gathering that separation is not denied in its addition, nor is it far-fetched from analogy. It has not been singled out in the mentioned indication, as the consensus is on the lack of its purity, which does not allow for separation in it. Thus, the mentioned aspect cannot stand alone in indication, and Allah is the Grantor of success.

By burying, or by slaughtering them for the idols, and the man in the pre-Islamic era would swear: If he were to have such a boy, he would surely slaughter one of them, just as Abdul Muttalib swore. And it was recited: Zain, in the active form which is their partners, and the killing of their children was in the accusative, and Zain, in the passive form which is the killing, and their partners were raised by implying an action indicated by Zain, as if it were said: When it was said, 'Zain for them the killing of their children,' who adorned it for them?

It was said: Their partners adorned it for them. As for the reading of Ibn Amer: 'The killing of their children is their partners' with the killing in the nominative and the children in the accusative and the partners in the genitive by adding the killing to the partners, and the separation between them by something other than the circumstance, this is something that if it were in the place of necessities, which is poetry, it would be ugly and rejected, just as it was ugly and rejected.

The thrust of the camel is like the thrust of Abu Mazad.

The thrust: is the stabbing; and the thrusting tool: the short spear, because it is a tool for thrusting. And the camel: is the young she-camel, and it is an object that is an unusual separation between the added and the added entity. He says: I stabbed the she-camel or the group with a short spear, like the stabbing of Abu Mazad of the she-camel in the journey.

So how about it in the scattered speech, so how about it in the miraculous Qur'an with its beautiful arrangement and eloquence. What led him to that was that he saw in some of the manuscripts their partners written with a 'ya'. If he had read with the genitive of the children and partners—because the children are their partners in their wealth—he would have found in that a way out from this transgression to lead them astray to destroy them by temptation and to confuse them in their religion and to mix it up for them and make it similar. Their religion: what they were upon from the religion of Ismail, peace be upon him, until they deviated from it to polytheism. And it was said: their religion which they were obligated to be upon. And it was said: it means to cause them to fall into a confused religion. If you say: what is the meaning of the 'lam'? I say: if the beautification is from the devils, then it is for the purpose of explanation, and if it is from the attendants, then it is for the meaning of becoming. And if Allah had willed a coercive will, they would not have done what the polytheists did of what was beautified for them of killing. Or for what the devils or the attendants did of beautification or leading astray or confusion or all of that, if you consider the pronoun to be in the same context as a demonstrative pronoun. And what they fabricate and what they fabricate from falsehood. Or their fabrication.