The uncovering of the leg and the revealing of the anklets: His saying "and the revealing of the anklets" is the plural of khidam, which refers to the anklet. This was indicated by the dictionaries. This is like the plural of raqaba (neck). (A) It is a metaphor for the severity of the matter and the difficulty of the situation. Its origin is in panic and defeat, and in the raising of the veiled women's garments in flight, and the revealing of their anklets at that time.

Hatim said:

"The brother of war, if war bites him, he bites it back... And if war raises its leg, it raises it."

This is from Jarir. It is narrated instead of the first line:

"O Lord, the one whose gaze wanders from the family of Mazin... When it raises..."

And the wandering gaze means a drooping eye. The brother of war means that he is accustomed to it and remains with it like a brother. He likens war to a horse that bites him in a figurative sense, thus attributing the act of biting to it. To bite it means to achieve his aim from it, or to overpower its people; thus, biting is a metaphor for that in a direct manner. It may also be an embellishment of the first meaning. His saying "by it" indicates that the bite occurred with part of it. His saying "it bites" implies that it occurred with all of it, meaning that he meets his enemies and more. The raising of the leg is a metaphor for the severity of the matter and its difficulty.

Its origin is that it is ascribed to a person, for raising the garment above the leg is for engaging in a tumult or running or something similar. It is ascribed to war to liken it to a person in a figurative manner. His saying "raise" means from his arm, not from his leg, because raising the arm is a metaphor for confronting the matter and engaging it with energy and strength, which is the intended meaning. Or raising from his leg and arm is a general indication, and it may be more emphatic than raising it. If you say: It should have been mentioned to raise before biting because it is a matter of preparation, I say: Yes, if it remained on its meaning, but the intended meaning here is the severity of the matter and the difficulty of war: an increase beyond its origin.

And Ibn al-Ruqayyat said:

"The old man forgets his sons and reveals... the anklets of the noble virgin."

"How can I sleep on the bed while... the Levant is encompassed by a fierce raid?"

The old man forgets his sons and reveals... the anklets of the noble virgin.

This is from Ubaid ibn Qais al-Ruqayyat. The word "how" is an interrogative of denial, meaning the negation of sleep. And "while" means "not," except that it implies the continuation of the negation until the time of speaking and the occurrence after it. He likens the raid, which is war, to wealth that encompasses and surrounds in a figurative manner, and the encompassing is an imagination. The fierce raid is one that is overwhelming and widespread. Its causing the old man to forget his sons is a metaphor for its severity, just as revealing the anklets of the noble virgin is. The anklets refer to the khidam. The noble one of anything is the one who is honored. Among the veiled women are those who are confined in their veils. The virgin is one who is difficult to attain and whose companionship is hard to achieve. In it is the variation, which is the difference in pronunciation with a damma and a kasra. It is narrated with the raising of "the noble virgin" as the subject of "revealing," and Ibn Jarir made it a witness to the permissibility of omitting the tanween when followed by a consonant, although it is more common to pronounce it in that case. According to this, this sentence needs a link that returns to the noun described, which is the raid, and the estimation is: "and in it the noble one reveals from the anklet."

So the meaning of the day when the leg is uncovered is in the sense of: the day when the matter becomes severe and intensifies, and there is no uncovering nor leg, just as you say to the miserly one: his hand is bound, and there is neither hand nor binding, rather it is a metaphor for stinginess.

As for the one who resembles, it is due to the narrowness of his understanding and the lack of his insight in the science of rhetoric. He is misled by the narration of Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him: "The Most Merciful will uncover His shin, and as for the believers, they will fall prostrate." As for the hypocrites, their backs will be like layers, as if there are skewers in them. Its meaning is that the matter of the Most Merciful becomes severe and His terror intensifies, which is the greatest terror on the Day of Resurrection. It is then appropriate for the shin to be recognized according to what the likeners have claimed, for it is a specific shin known to them, which is the shin of the Most Merciful. If you say: Why was it mentioned in an indefinite form in the metaphor? I say: To indicate that it is an ambiguous matter in severity, something strange outside of the usual, like His saying: "The Day the Caller calls to a matter that is dreadful." It is as if it were said: On a day when a terrible and horrific matter occurs. This comparison is narrated from Muqatil. And from Abu Ubaidah: Two men came out from Khurasan, one of them resembled until he was likened, and he is Muqatil ibn Sulayman, and the other denied until he became an atheist, and he is Jahm ibn Safwan. Whoever feels the enormity of the harms of this knowledge knows the extent of the greatness of its benefits. It has been recited: "The Day We uncover" with the pronoun 'We' and "uncover" with the pronoun 'She' in the active form for both the doer and the object, and the verb refers to the Hour or to the situation, meaning: On the day the situation or the Hour becomes severe, as you say: The war uncovered its shin metaphorically. And it has been recited: "Uncover" with the 'She' in the feminine form and a broken 'shīn', from 'akshaf': when one enters into uncovering. From it: The man uncovered, he is uncovered, if his upper lip turns. The adverbial modifier is: Let them come, or the implied 'remember', or 'the day He uncovers His shin'. It was omitted for the sake of great terror, and indeed there are from the events what cannot be described due to its enormity. Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Their backs will be rendered incapable, meaning their bones will be returned without joints, unable to bend when raised or lowered. In the narration: And their backs will remain like a single layer, meaning a single backbone. If you say: Why are they not called to prostration or to obligation? I say: They are not called to it in worship and obligation, but rather in reproach and reprimand for their neglect of prostration in this world, while their backs are rendered incapable, preventing them from being able to prostrate, as a means of humiliation and regret for what they neglected when they were called to prostrate, while their backs were intact and their joints were capable of performing what they were commanded.