Whatever is 'what' that includes the meaning of reward. Mahmoud said: 'Whatever is 'what' that includes the meaning of reward has included with it an additional 'what' that confirms the reward...' Ahmad said: 'And what he first counted from the words of Sibawayh, and we will mention it: Sibawayh said: I asked Al-Khalil about 'mahma' and he said: It is 'what' that has 'what' included with it, and it is equivalent to its status with 'mataa', when you say: Whenever you come to me, I will inform you.' End of Sibawayh's words. And it seems that this speaker - and Allah knows best - was misled by Al-Khalil's comparison of it to 'mataa', thinking it to be in its meaning. Rather, Al-Khalil compared the second part of 'mahma' in its addition as an emphasis to the first part with the addition of 'mataa'. Sibawayh's words return: 'But they found it distasteful to repeat one word, so they replaced the 'h' from the 'a' in the first.' End of his transmission from Al-Khalil. Sibawayh said: 'And it is permissible that it is thus combined with 'what'.' End of his words. Ahmad said: 'And the meaning of Sibawayh's comparison of it to 'idhma' is that the reward is by the entirety of the phrase, not by the first part of it alone, otherwise it would be the same as Al-Khalil's opinion. What confirms this is that Sibawayh said at the beginning of this chapter: 'As for 'hayth' and 'idh', they cannot be rewarded with them even if 'what' is added to them, so 'idh' with 'what' is equivalent to 'innama' and 'ka'annama', and the 'what' in them is not superfluous, but each one of them with 'what' is like a single particle. So consider his saying: 'And the 'what' in them is not superfluous,' meaning it is not an additional emphasis, but it has a share in necessitating the reward, so that it does not benefit except by the conjunction of the two parts of the phrase. And there remains a consideration regarding whether Sibawayh intended that 'what' was added to 'mahma' which is the sound, or to the 'what' that indicates reward. The apparent meaning of his intent is that its addition is to the sound, because if it were added to the 'what' that indicates reward, it would be independent in conveying the reward before the addition of 'what' to it, and it would not be like 'idh' and 'hayth', and Sibawayh's analogy would not be accurate. This is what Ibn Tahir understood, and his student Ibn Khuruf followed him in it. Ibn Khuruf attributed this opinion to Sibawayh and rejected Ibn Babshadh's claim that this opinion is specific to Al-Khalil, and both Ibn Babshadh and Al-Zamakhshari agreed on denying this opinion from Sibawayh, attributing it to others. The strongest evidence that supports Al-Khalil's opinion - and Allah knows best - is that this word has been used in questioning as it has been used in reward, and they recited: 'Whatever is for me tonight, whatever is for me... it has taken my sandal and my wealth.' He meant: 'my wealth tonight', and there is no doubt here that it is the interrogative 'what' repeated for emphasis, as they say: 'no no', and 'yes yes', then they found the repetition of the same word distasteful, so they changed the first 'a' to 'h'. And the change of the interrogative even if there is no repetition is more appropriate with it. If it becomes clear that 'mahma' that occurs in questioning is originally 'what' repeated, that is the clearest evidence that the one that occurs in reward is likewise, and citing parallels is a strong argument in Arabic, and Allah knows best. As for Al-Zamakhshari's rebuttal to those who claimed that it means 'mataa ma', it is a correct rebuttal, and the verse is the most truthful witness to his rebuttal, for the pronoun in it necessarily returns to 'mahma', and it is connected with an explanation of his saying: 'from a sign', indicating that the pronoun refers to the verse, thus necessitating the occurrence of 'mahma' upon it due to the necessity of establishing the reference in the implied and its manifestation. Therefore, the claim of this speaker that 'mahma' refers to time, claiming that it means 'mataa ma', is a departure from the truth.

The excuse of Al-Zamakhshari is clear in his response to the recording of it and the severity of the reproach against him, and the arrows of blame directed at him. So reflect on this chapter, for it contains illumination for the path and healing for the heart, and Allah is the Grantor of success. It includes the additional 'ma' which emphasizes the recompense in your saying: 'Whenever you go out, I will go out,' 'Wherever you may be, death will overtake you,' 'If we take you away.' However, the 'alif' was changed to 'ha' due to the heaviness of repeating similar sounds, which is the correct opinion of Al-Basri. Some people claim that 'ma' is the sound made by the 'kaf,' and 'ma' is for recompense, as if it were said: 'Stop bringing us any sign to enchant us with, for we will not believe you.' If you say: What is the position of 'ma'? I say: It is in the nominative meaning: whatever you bring us. Or in the accusative, meaning: whatever you present to us. And from the sign: it clarifies 'ma.' The two pronouns in 'bihee' and 'biha' refer back to 'ma,' except that one is mentioned in the masculine form, and the other in the feminine form, because it is in the meaning of the verse. An example of this is the saying of Zuhair: 'And whatever nature is with a person ... even if he thinks it is hidden from people, it is known.' This is from Zuhair ibn Abi Sulma's mu'allaqa. 'Whatever' is a conditional noun meaning any thing according to the preferred opinion, thus the pronoun returns to it. If it is intended to be feminine as here, sometimes the pronoun returns to it in the masculine form based on the wording as in the saying 'is,' and sometimes in the feminine form based on the meaning as in the saying 'even if he thinks it.' This is not made to return to 'khaliqa,' because 'ma' is what is being discussed, and 'min khaliqa' is an explanation of it. When it was clarified in the feminine, it was appropriate to feminize its pronoun after its clarification. It says: whatever nature and disposition exists in a person, people know it by its signs, even if they think it is hidden from them. And this word is among the words that are misused by those who have no knowledge of the Arabic language, placing it in the wrong context, and they consider 'ma' to mean 'whenever,' saying 'whenever you come to me, I will give you.' This is from their own invention and has nothing to do with the language of the Arabic language creator. Then they go on to interpret 'ma ta'tina bihi min ayah' in terms of time, thus deviating in the verses of Allah without realizing it. This and similar matters necessitate kneeling before the observer in the book of Sibawayh. If you say: How did they call it a verse, then say 'to enchant us with it'? I say: They did not call it a verse out of belief that it is a verse, but rather they named it in regard to the naming of Musa, and they intended thereby mockery and distraction. The flood that surrounded them and overwhelmed them was from rain or torrent. It is said: The water overflowed above their crops, as they were rained upon for eight days in severe darkness, unable to see the sun or moon, and no one could leave their house. It is said that Allah sent upon them the sky until they were about to perish, and the houses of the Children of Israel and the houses of the Egyptians were intertwined, so the houses of the Egyptians filled with water until they stood in the water up to their throats. Whoever sat drowned, and not a drop entered the houses of the Children of Israel, while the water overflowed on the surface of their land and stagnated, preventing them from farming, building, and engaging in any activity, and it lasted for seven days. And from Abu Qilabah: The flood was the first punishment that fell upon them, and it remained on the earth. It is said: It is the death of livestock.

The plague, they said to Musa: 'Pray to your Lord to remove it from us, and we will believe in you.' So he prayed, and it was lifted from them, but they did not believe. That year, vegetation and crops grew for them like they had never seen before. They remained for a month, then Allah sent upon them locusts that consumed most of their crops and fruits. Then they ate everything, even the doors and ceilings of the houses and the clothes, but nothing entered the houses of the Children of Israel. They were terrified and turned to Musa, promising him repentance. After seven days, Musa, peace be upon him, went out into the open and pointed his staff towards the east and the west. The locusts returned to the regions from which they had come. They said: 'We will not abandon our religion.' They remained for a month, then Allah sent upon them lice, which is the hannan according to Abu Ubaidah, the large locusts. It was said to be the dabbah, which are the young locusts. It was said to be fleas. And from Sa'id ibn Jubair: it was the worms that consumed what the locusts had left, and they licked the ground. It would enter between a person's garment and their skin, sucking it. One would eat food and become filled with lice, and one would take out ten bags to the mill, but only a little would return. And from Sa'id ibn Jubair, there was a dusty dune beside them, which Musa struck with his staff, and it became lice. It infested their skins, hair, eyelashes, and eyebrows, and clung to their skins like smallpox. They cried out and screamed and turned to Musa, so he lifted it from them. They said: 'Now we have realized that you are a sorcerer, and by the might of Pharaoh, we will never believe you.' Then Allah sent upon them frogs, which entered their houses and filled their vessels and food. No one could uncover anything of clothing, food, or drink without finding frogs in it. When a man wanted to speak, a frog would jump into his mouth. Their beds were filled with them, and they could not sleep. They would jump into the boiling pots and into the ovens while they were steaming. They complained to Musa and said: 'Have mercy on us this time; we have nothing left but to repent sincerely and not return.' So he took their pledges and prayed, and Allah lifted it from them. Then they broke the covenant, and Allah sent upon them blood, so their waters turned to blood. They complained to Pharaoh, who said: 'It is your sorcery.' He would gather the Egyptian and the Israeli over one vessel, and what was near the Israeli would be water, while what was near the Egyptian would be blood. They would draw from one water source, and the Egyptian would get blood, while the Israeli would get water. Even the Egyptian woman would say to her Israeli neighbor: 'Put the water in your mouth and then spit it into mine,' and the water would turn to blood in her mouth. Pharaoh became so thirsty that he was near death; he would suck on the moist trees, and when he chewed them, their good water turned salty and bitter. And from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib: the Nile flowed with blood. It was said that Allah sent upon them nosebleeds. It is narrated that Musa, peace be upon him, remained among them for twenty years after defeating the sorcerers, showing them these signs. It is narrated that when he showed them the hand and the staff and the loss of lives and fruits, he said: 'O Lord, this servant of Yours has become arrogant on the earth, so take him with a punishment that will be a calamity for him and his people, a lesson for my people, and a sign for those after me.' At that time, Allah sent upon them the flood, then the locusts, and then what followed of calamities. Al-Hasan read: 'and the lice,' with a فتح on the قاف and a سكون on the ميم, meaning the known lice. The detailed signs are clear signs that no rational person can doubt are from the signs of Allah, which no one else can perform, and they are a lesson for them and a punishment for their disbelief. Or they are separated from one another by a time in which their conditions are tested, and it is seen whether they will remain steadfast on what they promised themselves or break their pledge, thus establishing the proof against them.