Continuation of the exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “Have they not looked at what is before them and what is behind them of the sky and the earth? If We will, We will sink them into the earth, or We will cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Indeed, in that is a sign for every servant who turns back [to Us].”

...to His obedience. This includes the one who performs worship, even if he has not committed a sin, and it includes the one who repents from a sin. So, when a man stands to pray and worships Allah the Mighty and Majestic, it is said that he has turned back to Allah. And when he commits a sin and then seeks forgiveness and returns, it is also said that he has turned back to Allah. So, *inabah* (turning back) here includes turning back from a sin one has committed, in which case it means repentance. It also includes turning back to Allah by performing His obedience, making it broader and more comprehensive. In His saying , there is a matter I forgot to point out regarding the *i'rad* (elision) about which grammarians have differed. The grammarians differed on the grammatical parsing of a sentence when it begins with a question hamzah followed by a conjunction. It was said: “The hamzah, I mean the question hamzah, is attached to something implied based on the context”. And it was said: “It was also said that the hamzah is attached to the existing sentence without any implied word, and that the conjunction had the right to precede the hamzah, but it was placed after it because the hamzah has the priority of position.” This first view implies that in His saying , the implied words are “did they neglect” or “did they turn away,” or something similar. As for the second view, there is no need for this implication; rather, we say that the hamzah is for questioning and the *waw* is a conjunction that was delayed after the hamzah because the hamzah has the priority of position. Which is better? The second is better, meaning that saying the hamzah is attached to this very sentence is preferable. This is because the first view may burden you with implying the omitted word, meaning it is not from... to imply the omitted word. But this, based on the fact that this sentence is conjoined to what came before, does not require an implication, so do not trouble yourself with it.