Meccan, and its verses are 15 [revealed after Al-Qadr] 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful'.

Dhuha: Its light when it shines and its authority rises, and thus it is said: the time of Dhuha. It is as if its face is the sun of Dhuha. It is said that Dhuha is the height of the day. And Dhuha is above that. And Dhuha with the opening and elongation means when the day extends and is close to noon if it follows it rising at its sunset taking from its light, and that is in the first half of the month. And it is said: when it turns and follows it in brightness and light when it reveals itself at the swelling of the day.

[The saying "at the swelling of the day" in the Sahih: the day swells, meaning: it rises.] And its spreading, because the sun reveals itself at that time completely. And it is said: the pronoun refers to darkness, or to the world, or to the earth, even if it is not mentioned, like their saying: it has become cold: they mean the morning, and it has sent: they mean the sky when it covers it, then it darkens and the horizons become dark.

If you say: the matter in the accusative of "if" is complicated, because you are not free from either making the waw conjunction and thus it becomes accusative and genitive, and it falls in conjunction on two factors in the manner of your saying: I passed yesterday by Zayd, and today by Amr. Or you make them for swearing, and it falls in what Al-Khalil and Sibawayh agreed upon as being disliked.

I say: the answer is that the waw of swearing is placed with it to entirely omit the action, so it has a status different from that of the ba, where the action is highlighted with it and is implied, so the waw stands in place of the action and the ba fills its place together, and the conjunction waw acts as substitutes for this waw, so they confirm that they are factors on the action and the genitive altogether, as you say: Zayd struck Amr, and Bakr struck Khalid, so it is raised by the waw and is accusative for its standing in place of the striking which is their factor.

I made "ma" a source in the saying: وَما بَناها وَما طَحاها وَما سَوَّاها and it is not the case for the saying: فَأَلْهَمَها and what it leads to of corruption in the structure. The correct view is that it is relative, and it is preferred over "man" for the intention of the descriptive meaning, as if it were said: and the sky, and the mighty capable one who built it, and the soul, and the wise one who has great wisdom who fashioned it. And in their speech: Glorified is what You have made subservient to us.

If you say: why is the soul indefinite? I say: there are two aspects.

He means a specific soul among the souls, which is the soul of Adam, as if he said: and one of the souls. The second is that he means every soul and denies it for the purpose of multiplication, in the manner mentioned in the saying: "A soul has known." The meaning of the inspiration of wickedness and piety is to make them understood and to restrain them. One of them is good and the other is bad, and it enables one to choose whichever he wishes from them. [Mahrud said: "The meaning of the inspiration of wickedness and piety is to make them understood and to restrain them, and that one of them is good and the other is bad, and enabling him... etc." Ahmad said: This speech clarifies two types of falsehood. One of them is in his saying: The meaning of the inspiration of wickedness and piety is to make them understood and to restrain them, and that one of them is good and the other is bad. What he conceals in these words is the belief that goodness and badness are comprehended by reason. Do you not see his saying: 'to restrain them,' meaning the creation of reason that leads to the knowledge of the goodness of good and the badness of bad? He has taken this opportunity to imply that inspiration is related to this, for it may be thought that its application to knowledge gained from hearing is distant. What cuts off this inclination is that even if we say that goodness and badness can only be understood through hearing, because they relate to the legal rulings which are not based on the attributes of actions, we do not dismiss the role of reason in understanding legal rulings. Rather, it is necessary for the knowledge of every legal ruling to have two premises: one rational, which leads to the belief, and one transmitted, which indicates the specific ruling. Moreover, its attachment to the apparent is, if its appearance is conceded, in a rule that is categorical, separate from correctness. The second inclination, which has been revealed in its presentation, is that the purification and its counterpart are not created by Allah, the Exalted, but by His partners, the Mu'tazilah. We oppose him in appearance based on the implication of the verse, although he did not mention a reason to refute those who said that the pronoun refers to Allah, the Exalted, but rather limited himself to the claim accompanied by foolishness towards the people of the Sunnah. We say: There is no doubt in the possibility of the pronoun returning to Allah, the Exalted, and to the one with the soul, but its return to Allah, the Exalted, is more appropriate for two reasons. One is that the sentences were presented in a single manner from His saying: "By the heaven and what it built" and so on, and the pronouns in the preceding two verbs return to Allah, the Exalted, by consensus, and there is no mention of anyone other than Allah, the Exalted. And if it is said that the pronoun returns to someone else, it can only be justified by the implication of the speech implicitly and necessarily, not by mention and articulation. What has been mentioned is more appropriate for the pronoun to return to it. The second is that the action used in the verse which is cited in His saying: "Certainly, he has succeeded who purifies it" is "purifies," and there is no doubt that "purifies" is a derivative of "to purify." This indicates to us, rather than indicating to him, because the speech for us is: Certainly, he has succeeded who Allah has purified and thus he purifies, and for him the doer in both is one, he has added to it two different actions, and it requires in correcting the speech to consider its aspect in detail, and we are sufficient in this regard. Moreover, we do not deny that purification and defilement can be attributed to the servant, in the manner that he is the doer, just as prayer, fasting, and other acts of obedience can be attributed to him, because he has a choice and ability that is concurrent. Even if we deny the rational proof that indicates the oneness of Allah, the Exalted, and negates partners, we do not make the ability of the servant effective or creating. This is our response to the verse as a concession, otherwise he did not mention a reason for the refutation, so we are obliged to respond to it. As for our response to his foolishness towards the people of the Sunnah, it is silence, and Allah is the Grantor of success.

He accused him. And his meaning by the Qadarites is the people of the Sunnah, as they said: Everything that occurs in the universe is by His decree and destiny, whether good or evil. And He creates it by His will, whether it is ugly or good, from the actions of the servants or otherwise, as established in Tawhid. (He) is free from and exalted above the decree attributed to Allah, and they spend their nights in a falsehood they attribute to Him. If you say: Where is the answer to the oath? I say: It is omitted, its estimation is: Allah will certainly punish them, that is: the people of Mecca for their denial of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, just as He punished Thamud because they denied Salih. As for 'Certainly he has succeeded who purifies it,' it is a statement following his saying 'And He inspired it with its wickedness and its piety' as a digression, and it is not part of the answer to the oath.