'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' By the retreating stars, while you see the star at the end of the zodiac, it turns back to its beginning. And the wandering planets. And the hiding [the commentator Al-Zamakhshari addressed the worker, etc. Ahmad said: This answer does not hold, due to the appearance of the second action in his saying, 'So I do not swear by the retreating stars.' And when the answer to this question was difficult in Surah Al-Takwir, Sheikh Abu Amr Ibn Al-Hajib adhered to allowing conjunction on two agents, and took this verse as his support and aid in opposing Sibawayh. He responded to Al-Zamakhshari's answer in Surah Al-Shams, because it was not consistent for him here. And in his response, he appreciated the sharpness of his intellect in his deduction. And we, by Allah's grace, adhere to Sibawayh's view on the prohibition of conjunction on two agents by making the second 'wa' (and) a conjunction. Al-Zamakhshari's answer here is separate from this verse. You say: His saying, 'And by the night when it darkens,' this first 'wa' is the beginning of an oath, and the 'wa' in his saying, 'And by the dawn when it breathes,' is a conjunction, thus what Al-Zamakhshari said is consistent. If it is said: You have opposed Sibawayh, for he does not see the 'wa' that follows the oath as the beginning of an oath but as a conjunction, and you have made the first 'wa,' which follows the oath, the beginning of an oath? We say: Sibawayh spoke about the 'wa' that follows the oath with 'wa,' but as for the verse, the first oath in it is by 'ba' and the verb, so we made the 'wa' after that an oath and a follow-up, which is more eloquent, as if he swore two oaths by two different things. If it is accepted: Yes. Sibawayh spoke about the 'wa' that follows the oath with 'wa,' so what is the difference between that which follows the oath with 'wa' and that which follows the oath with 'ba'? They are both the same, for each is a tool for it, and the 'ta' indicates the 'ba,' so their ruling is one? We say: They are not the same, for the oath from me is initiated with 'wa' and does not follow another 'wa,' so making it another oath involves a repetition that is not acceptable, as the tool is one. This is not the case if the tool differs, for the agent of repetition is safe then. Do you not see that if the oath was initiated with 'wa,' and then followed by an oath with 'ba,' it would necessitate making them two independent oaths? So likewise if this order were reversed. Also, if the impediment for Sibawayh from making the second 'wa' an independent oath is the coming of the answer as one, and the need for the first 'wa' to have an omitted part, then conjunction suffices for estimating an omitted part, thus it is determined, and it is not necessary to adhere to 'ba' because it is the origin of the oath, especially with the explicit action of the oath and its confirmation with an additional 'no.' For in the entirety of that, there is enough to suffice for its individual answer mentioned, and the 'wa' is weak in its capacity in the matter of the oath compared to 'ba,' so the omission of an answer that could be indicated does not necessitate the omission of an answer that is less clear. And I conclude the speech on this question with a brilliant point, and I say: I have specifically mentioned the question of the second 'wa' in his saying, 'And by the night when it darkens,' without the third, because it is not directed at it. Do you not see that if you made it a conjunction, you would not be required to join it to two agents, because you would make it a substitute for 'ba' and make 'when it darkens' governed by the verb directly if no time clause preceded it in the verb's sentence to which it could be joined. Thus it becomes like your saying: 'I passed by Zayd and Amr today,' so 'today' is governed by the verb directly, and it is understood from the example that your passing by Zayd is unrestricted by a time clause, but the one restricted by 'today' is your passing by Amr specifically. But it corresponds to the verse, for the time clause in it, even though the verb works directly in it, restricts the oath to the night, not to the oath by the retreating stars.' The unseen from the hiding of the wild: when it enters its hiding place. It is said: They are the five bright stars: Bahram [the term 'Bahram' is not Arabic, and it refers to Mars], and Saturn, and Mercury, and Venus, and Jupiter: they move with the sun and the moon, and they return until they hide under the sunlight. So their retreat is their returning, and their hiding is their disappearing under the sunlight. It is said: They are all the planets, they retreat during the day so they disappear from the eyes, and they rise at night: that is, they appear in their places, like the wild in its hiding place. The night darkens and 'as'as'a: when it retreats. Al-Ajjaj said:

Until when the morning breathes for it... and the night departs from it and retreats. [The meaning of 'the morning breathes' is the expansion of its light, or its coming with light and breeze. The pronoun 'for it' refers to the sun, and it is said: to the open land. 'Departed' means the darkness of the night has cut off and separated from it. 'Retreats' means it has turned away and its darkness has vanished, and it is an affirmation of what came before.

It is also possible that the pronoun refers to a wild cow, for example.]

And it is said: 'retreats' means when its darkness approaches. If you say: What is the meaning of 'the morning breathes'? I say: When the morning approaches, it comes with its coming a spirit and breeze, and thus it is made a breath for it in a metaphorical sense. And it is said: 'the morning breathes.'