The places of war: its stations and positions. [Mahmoud said: "The places of war are its stations and positions... etc."] Ahmad said: There is no objection - and Allah knows best - to the conjunction of the spatial and temporal circumstances, one upon the other, just as one can join one object of the verb to another while the verb is the same. For it is permissible to say: Zaid struck Amr in the mosque and on Friday, just as you say: I struck Zaid and Amr. There is no need to imply a new action other than the first. This is while it is necessary for the actions involved with the objects to be truly different. For if you say: I strike Zaid today and Amr tomorrow, there is no doubt that the two strikes are different due to the difference in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the action is one in the craft. Based on this, it is permissible in the verse - and Allah knows best - for each of the circumstances to remain in its state without being interpreted as referring to the other. However, Al-Zamakhshari required the multiplicity of the action and the estimation of a doer for the temporal circumstance other than the first action. Even though they are both, in his view, two times, due to the reason that their multiplicity was not established in all the places. He means: If you were to go to the unity of the doer, that would necessitate that, and this is not necessary. Do you not see that if you said: I strike Zaid when he stands and when he sits, the doer for the two circumstances would be one while they are different? The action of one verb in two different temporal circumstances is only prevented when there is no conjunction between them, and Allah knows best.]

And how many places of war would I have fallen as it fell... due to its weight from the scarcity of the means.

["You show me a smile as if you are a sincere advisor... and your eyes reveal that your heart has enmity towards me."]

["Your tongue is sweet and your eyes are bitter... and your evil is spread out while your good is concealed."]

["I wish your goodness were all sufficient... and your evil had not quenched my thirst."]

["And how many places of war would I have fallen as it fell... due to its weight from the scarcity of the means."]

["I have gathered and committed the sins of backbiting and slander... three traits I am not cautious about."]

This is by Yazid ibn al-Hakam ibn Abi al-Aas al-Thaqafi. The term "mukasharah" refers to mockery, and he chose it in expression indicating that it is not true mockery that the heart agrees with, rather it is merely showing the teeth in front of him to show him that he is a sincere advisor, like a disease that has corrupted his heart. And "dawai" means pure affection. The heart is also "dawai" with the lightening of the weight, like "blindness" or "richness," on the pattern of "fa'al" or "fa'il." And with the emphasis, its lightening is for the weight.

And "madhy" is honey because it flows from it, and the wine is called "madhy" due to its smoothness. And "al-‘alaqam" is colocynth and every bitter tree and everything bitter, meaning your tongue is like honey in the sweetness of speech. And your eyes are like colocynth in the bitterness of the soul and its aversion to everything, where you look at me with the gaze of an envious person filled with anger. And the evil and good are likened to two carpets metaphorically, and the spreading and folding is imaginative. The name "wish" has the subject of the matter or the pronoun of the addressee omitted, and your goodness is the subject of "was," and "kafa" is its predicate. And "your evil" is conjoined to "your goodness." It is permissible that it is from the case of contention for those who permitted it in the particles, because "wish" necessitates action in "your goodness," and "was" necessitates action in it, so the second was acted upon and its pronoun was omitted from the first, because although it is the main point, it resembles the excess in its accusative case. Just as the Kufans permitted its omission in the case of "was" and the case of "thought," we learn it from its interpreter, meaning: I wish the state and the matter were that all your goodness and your evil were sufficient for me.

With the opening, meaning sufficient for you from me, and if "kafa" were broken as it is a form of "kafa," it would be permissible, and the source would mean the name of the doer, exaggerating: meaning sufficient for you, or turning away from me as long as "murtawi" is quenched with water, meaning always. And how many: is a news for abundance, meaning many places of war, if it were not for my existence, I would have fallen.

That is, they perished in it as one who falls, meaning a fallen one due to the lack of support. It is narrated: the peak of support, and the meaning is the same, that is: from the top of the high mountain. Sibawayh's view is that "lawla" is a preposition if followed by a pronoun in the accusative case. Al-Akhfash's view is that it places the accusative pronoun in the position of a nominative pronoun at the beginning, and Al-Mubarrad denied its occurrence, which is countered by this. Abu Ali al-Farisi said: the verb and its corresponding form can both be intransitive together, like "hawa" and "inhawa," and "ghawa" and "inghawa," as evidenced by a line of poetry. The majority interpreted it as a necessity. The analogy is: "haw" and "ghaw." Some of them considered them to be corresponding to "ahdaytuhu" and "aghwaytuhu," but its corresponding form is "infa'al" not an irregular verb. If it were said: "inhawa" corresponding to "hawa" it would be permissible, but it is not conventional. Then he said to him: you combined backbiting, gossip, and obscenity, so he placed the conjunction first for necessity. Ibn Jinni made it an object of accompaniment and permitted its precedence over its companion, holding onto that, and it could also be a necessity. In it is an indication from the very beginning of the intention of multiplicity and abundance, and three traits as a substitute for what preceded it, and I am not from it: that is, I am not deterred from it, so he placed the object first for emphasis, and the "ya" in the rhyme is for release. And its refusal to decline is because it is plural, and in a form that has not been encountered by one, and the many locations: the battles of Badr, Qurayzah, Al-Nadir, Al-Hudaybiyah, Khaybar, and the conquest of Mecca. If you say: how is the time and place, which is the day of Hunayn, conjoined with the locations? I say: its meaning is and the location of the day of Hunayn. Or in the days of many locations and the day of Hunayn. It is permissible that by location it is meant the time, like the killing of Al-Husayn, provided that it must be that the day of Hunayn is in the accusative case due to an implied verb not by this apparent one. The implication of that is that the saying "when it pleased you" is a substitute for the day of Hunayn, so if you made this apparent one its subject, it would not be correct, because their multitude did not please them in all those locations. And they were not numerous in all of them, so it remains that its subject must be a specific verb, unless you made "when" accusative by implying "remember" and Hunayn: a valley between Mecca and Ta'if, where the battle took place between the Muslims, who were twelve thousand, who attended the conquest of Mecca, joined by two thousand from the freed captives, and between Hawazin and Thaqif, who were four thousand among those who joined them from the support of other Arabs, thus there was a great multitude. When they met, a man from the Muslims said:

We will not be defeated today by a few, and this distressed the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. It was said that the speaker was the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. It was also said that it was Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. I did not find it in this context, and his saying: 'The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, said it' has been reported that he said, 'Twelve thousand will not be defeated by a few' in a narration other than this one. As for this, if the author came across something of that, then his saying, 'And they were overtaken by the words of admiration for the multitude and descended from them,' is appropriate. As for his saying, 'And it was said that Abu Bakr said it,' I did not find it. His saying, 'And from Hawazin and Thaqif, and in four thousand boys,' is incorrect. The truth is that Hawazin and Thaqif were among the polytheists. What is in Sahih Muslim from the narration of Al-Abbas is, 'I witnessed with the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, on the Day of Hunayn,' and I mentioned the story, and there is a change and a reduction from what the author presented, and it does not contain 'Take them by the necks,' but rather it contains, 'Al-Abbas called the companions of the Samurah and called the companions of the tree. He said: Give the neck of the cow to its offspring.' And Yunus ibn Bakr narrated in a supplement to the Maghazi from Abu Ja'far Al-Razi, the son of Al-Rabi, meaning the son of Anas, 'That a man said on the Day of Hunayn: We will not be defeated today by a few.' This distressed the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and Allah revealed - and he mentioned the verse. Al-Rabi said they were twelve thousand, among them two thousand from the people of Mecca.

Either your children and your women, or your wealth. They said: We would not exchange our lineage for anything. Then the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, stood and said: These have come as Muslims, and we have given them the choice between children and wealth, and they did not exchange their lineage for anything. So whoever has something in his hand and his soul is pleased to return it, then that is his affair. And whoever does not, let him give to us, and let it be a loan upon us until we obtain something, then we will give him in its place. They said: We are pleased and we submit. He said: I do not know, perhaps among you there are those who are not pleased, so instruct your leaders to raise that to us. It was raised to him by the leaders that they had agreed.