If you say: What is the connection of his saying [[Mahamud said: "If you say: How is his saying connected, 'So as for man...' etc." Ahmad said: His saying does not intend from man except obedience and does not command him except with it: a corrupt heart, based on its corrupt origin, sound in incapacity.]] 'So as for man'? I say: By his saying 'Indeed, your Lord is in observation.' It is as if it is said: Indeed, Allah does not want from man except obedience and striving for the outcome, and He is observing with punishment for the disobedient. So as for man, he does not want that and does not care except for the immediate and what pleases him and brings him comfort in it. If you say: How do you balance his saying, 'So as for man, when his Lord tests him,' and his saying 'And as for when his Lord tests him' [[Mahamud said: "If you say, how do you balance his saying 'So as for man, when his Lord tests him,' and his saying 'And as for when his Lord tests him.' Ahmad said: He means that what follows the first 'as for' is based on the name, and what follows the second 'as for' is based on the action. The questioner intends for them to be two sources: either by two names or by two actions.]]? The right balance is that the two realities after 'as for' and 'as for' should correspond. You say: 'As for man, he is ungrateful, and as for the king, he is grateful.' As for if you do good to Zaid, he is good to you, and as for if you do harm to him, he is harmful to you? I say: They are balanced in that the estimation is: 'And as for him, when his Lord tests him.' This is because his saying 'So he says, My Lord has honored me' is the news of the subject which is man, and the entry of the 'fa' is due to the meaning of condition in 'as for,' and the intermediate circumstance between the subject and the news is in the estimation of delay, as if it is said: 'So as for man, he is the one who says, My Lord has honored me at the time of the test.' Thus, it is necessary that 'So he says' is the news of a subject that is necessary in its estimation. If you say: How did he name both matters of the expansion of provision and its estimation a test? I say: Because each one of them is a trial for the servant. If he is given abundance, he has been tested in his condition: will he be grateful or will he be ungrateful? And if he is restricted, he has been tested in his condition: will he be patient or will he despair? The wisdom in both is one. And similar to his saying, 'And We will test you with evil and good as a trial.' If you say:

He said: 'So he dishonored him and limited his provision, just as he said: 'So he honored him and blessed him?' I said: 'Because the expansion is an honor from Allah to His servant by bestowing upon him, graciously and without any prior claim.' [Mahamud said: 'If you say, why did he not say: So he dishonored him and limited his provision, just as he said: So he honored him and blessed him? He answered that the expansion is an honor from Allah, glorified and exalted is He, to His servant without any prior claim.'] Ahmad said: 'This is an additional restriction branching from its corrupt origin, and the truth is that every blessing from Allah is likewise.' As for the limitation, it is not a dishonor to him, because the failure to bestow is not an insult, but rather a departure from honor. The master may honor his servant and also dishonor him, and he may neither honor nor dishonor. If Zaid gifts you a present, you would say: 'He honored me with the gift,' and you would not say: 'He dishonored me' or 'He honored me' if he did not gift you. If you say: 'But he said: So he honored him,' he affirmed and established his honor, then he denied the saying: 'My Lord has honored me' and condemned him for it, just as he denied the saying: 'He has dishonored me' and condemned him for it. I said: 'There are two responses to this. The first is that he only denied the saying: 'My Lord has honored me' and condemned him for it because he said it with the intention contrary to what Allah has affirmed and established, which is his intention that Allah has given him what He has given him as an honor due to him, deserving and obligatory according to their customary pride and the greatness of their status among themselves, like His saying: 'I was only given it because of knowledge I possess.' [Mahamud said: 'If you say: But he said: So he honored him, he affirmed and established his honor, then he denied the saying: My Lord has honored me and condemned him for it just as he denied the saying: My Lord has dishonored me and condemned him for it. He answered with two matters, the first being that the denial was against his belief that Allah's honor to him is due to his lineage and status and the greatness of his rank, as they believed they deserved honor from Allah for that, as he said: 'I was only given it because of knowledge.'] And Allah has given him in a manner of grace without any obligation from him or any prior claim that Allah does not regard except for piety, not for the lineages and genealogies by which they used to boast and see themselves deserving of honor because of them. The second is that the denial and condemnation are directed at the saying: 'My Lord has dishonored me,' meaning that if He bestows upon him goodness and honors him, he acknowledges Allah's grace and honor. If He does not bestow upon him, he calls the lack of bestowal dishonor, but it is not dishonor. This is supported by the mention of honor in the saying: 'So he honored him.' [Mahamud said: 'The second is that the context of denial and condemnation is directed at the saying: My Lord has dishonored me, meaning that if He bestows upon him goodness, he acknowledges Allah's grace. If He does not bestow upon him, he calls the lack of bestowal dishonor, but it is not dishonor. This is supported by the mention of honor in the saying: So he honored him.'] And it was read: 'and limited' with both light and heavy pronunciation. And 'He honored me' and 'He has dishonored me' with the noon being silent at the pause, for those who omit the ya in the recitation, relying on the kasrah.