Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “And if only you could see when the wrongdoers are brought before their Lord, and some of them turn to others in speech, saying: ‘The ones who were oppressed said to the ones who were arrogant:’”

Allah the Exalted said: The author said: “O Muhammad” meaning is a conditional particle, its condition being the verb . Did it come here as a jussive (mandating the subjunctive) or non-jussive? It is non-jussive, and its response is omitted, meaning: if you saw a terrible matter. The response of the condition in such an estimation is greater than mentioning it, because the negation goes in its estimation in every direction of horror and ugliness. And “law” (if) comes in the Arabic language with several meanings: it comes as a conditional particle as here, and it comes as a nominalizer (indicating a source) as in His saying: [Al-Qalam: 9]. And the author’s saying: “O Muhammad”: The author restricted the pronoun to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), although it is possible that the intended meaning is what? Every addressee, meaning: if you, O addressee, could see the state of these people, you would see a terrible matter. And His saying: means the time or... so it is a temporal adverb, and is the subject (mubtada) and is its predicate (khabar). The intended meaning of “the wrongdoers” here, the author said: “the disbelievers”. And he specified it as disbelievers although “wrongdoing” is broader, due to the context, where Allah the Exalted said at the end of it: [Saba: 33]. So the intended meaning of “the wrongdoers” here is the disbelievers. Now, is every disbeliever a wrongdoer? Is every wrongdoer a disbeliever? No. And for this reason, when Allah the Exalted said: , the scholars said: “We praise Allah that He did not say ‘and the wrongdoers are the disbelievers’”. Now, means detained. So the meaning of “waqf” (stopping) is detaining. From this, the “waqf” (endowment) for money is named, which is the detained money whose substance is held and whose benefit is bound. So the meaning of is detained before Allah Mighty and Majestic. And His saying: , and He did not say “before Allah,” because such an action indicating greatness is appropriate with what? With Lordship, due to the perfection of His Lordship, Mighty and Majestic, and the perfection of His dominion and authority. You find these oppressors who have in this world arrogance, pride, and stubbornness, you find them at the slightest thing before His Lordship, Allah Mighty and Majestic, meaning they return. And thus it is transitive, because “raj’a” (return) comes intransitive and transitive. So your saying: “I returned from Makkah to al-Madinah,” is this intransitive or transitive? Intransitive, my brother. “I returned from Makkah to al-Madinah” is intransitive, because it did not put the object in the accusative case. And His saying: [At-Tawbah: 83] is transitive. And here He said: , is it transitive or intransitive? Transitive, meaning He returns them. And His saying: , here it is vague and general, then He detailed it by His saying: to the end of it. The benefit of the vague followed by the detailed is great, because if one generalizes and makes it vague first, then the soul looks forward to the clarification and detailing of that thing. And therefore, when I say, when I read: , what will be in your mind? Your mind will be inclined to the clarification of this speech that they are returning to. But if He had said: , it would not have had the same firmness in the mind as what was before it, when He made the speech vague then clarified it, or made it vague then detailed it. What do they say? The followers. The leaders. You prevented us from believing. In the Prophet. This is a conditional particle, and it is called a particle of impossibility due to existence, because its response is impossible due to the existence of what? Its condition. Its response is impossible due to the existence of its condition. Now, “lawla” (if not) comes as a conditional particle as here, and it comes for urging as in His saying: [An-Nur: 13]. And it comes for negation as in His saying: [Yunus: 98]. The meaning is: so no town believed and its belief benefited it, except the people of Yunus when they believed. Now, here he says: Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says: “And after lawla, the predicate is usually omitted, necessarily”. So here the subject (mubtada) exists, and it is . Where is the predicate? It is omitted. The author estimated it by his saying: “You prevented us”. How did he know it is with this wording? From his saying: So we do not estimate here “if not you existed,” because “preventing” (sadd) is more specific than general existence. And if we have a way to estimate the more specific, it is better than estimating the more general. And for this reason, we said: if the reader says: “In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy,” he estimates the related to his saying: “I read,” not his saying: “I begin,” because “I begin” is general and “I read” is specific. Here we can say: “If not you existed,” but since we find a more specific action, which is the prevention indicated by his saying: , it is obligatory for us to estimate “if not you prevented us.” Yes. This is the response of the condition, and for this reason it was connected with the lam (the particle of certainty). But with whom? He said: “With the Prophet”. And the most correct is that it is broader, meaning: we would have been believers in what the message of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) includes of belief in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and other things that belief in them is obligatory. Now,