Continuation of the commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “And he hopes for the mercy” of Paradise “of his Lord” like one who is disobedient through disbelief or otherwise?

But another meaning is intended by mercy, which is the action of Allah toward the servant, that is, His mercy for the servant. So which of the two is more appropriate in this verse, brother? Which is more appropriate?
The student: ... mercy in the meaning of...

The Shaykh : That is, yes.
The student: That is, he fears the punishment of the Hereafter, and he hopes for the mercy of Allah, meaning he fears the Fire and hopes for Paradise.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is what the author adopted. But why don’t we say: “He hopes that Allah will have mercy on him,” and the intended meaning of mercy here is the mercy of Allah, which is His action, meaning he hopes that Allah will have mercy on him by both matters: salvation from the Fire and entering Paradise. This meaning is better, because what is generally understood by the meaning of mercy is the action of Allah, meaning that Allah has mercy on you. Also, if we say “the mercy of Allah,” it becomes that he hopes to be saved from the Fire or from the punishment of the Hereafter and to attain Paradise. He said: “Like one who is disobedient through disbelief or otherwise” The author (may Allah have mercy on him) benefited us with this estimation by clarifying that in this verse, Allah explains that this and that are not equal. Is one who is devout, prostrating and standing in the hours of the night, equal to one who is disobedient through disbelief and otherwise? The answer is: No. And this is from the eloquence of the Qur’an. The Qur’an contains many things that are omitted, due to the indication of the mentioned over the omitted, and this is from eloquence. How is it from eloquence? Because when something is omitted, the addressee benefits in two ways: the first benefit is the brevity of the speech. Pay attention! Is this clear or not clear? The second benefit is the strength of attention, because if there is something omitted in the verse, the mind looks for this omitted thing, and you find the person pausing, thinking, and contemplating what was omitted? And what is its estimation? But if the speech came in a straightforward manner like this, without this pause and thinking, you would not get this pause and this thinking. If you read the noble verse now, you would find yourself eager for what? For something else. The speech is not complete. There must be something else, and at that time, your attention intensifies and your contemplation of the meaning increases. So the aspect of eloquence—O Abdullah—is clear.
The student: The first thing is that he becomes more attentive...

The Shaykh : That is, the brevity, and the second
The student: focus

The Shaykh : What is focus?
The student: intensifying attention.

The Shaykh : Yes, intensifying attention. How? The first, we understood the brevity. It is clear that omitting something from the speech necessitates less speech and brevity of speech. But the second?
The student: Because if the phrase is short, it is easier... for the addressee and more...

The Shaykh : No.
The student: And that when it was omitted... because if the speech were complete... he would pass over it without complete observation...

The Shaykh : Because this omitted thing is necessary, so the person looks for what this omitted thing is. The speech now is incomplete, meaning that the speech needs something, so the person looks to know this thing, and at that time, he increases in reflection. This is from the eloquence of the Qur’an, meaning that sometimes Allah (Mighty and Majestic) omits things that the addressee needs for this benefit, or rather for these two benefits. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “And in a reading, ‘Or is it one who’” In the reading “Or is it one who,” does this reading add to the first one?
The student: Am

The Shaykh : Am, okay. And the author’s saying: “In a reading” From the author’s (may Allah have mercy on him) terminology, if he says: “In a reading,” or says: “With the fathah of such and such and the dammah of such and such,” or says: “With the taa and the yaa,” then the reading is one of the seven canonical readings. So the reading is one of the seven. But if he says: “And it was read,” sometimes he expresses it by saying: “And it was read,” then the reading is anomalous, not one of the seven. Pay attention to this terminology: if he brings two equal readings, like he says: “In a reading,” or “With the dammah and the fathah,” or “With the yaa and the taa,” and similar expressions, then the reading is one of the seven. But if he says: “And it was read” in the passive voice, then the reading is anomalous. Based on this rule, is the reading ?
The student: One of the seven

The Shaykh : One of the seven, because he said: “And in a reading, ‘Or is it one who,’ so

Or

أم

means

Rather

بل

and the hamza” That is: Rather, is it one who? Rather, is it one who is devout in the hours of the night? So it is for transition. Is the transition here negating or transitional?
The student: Transitioning.

The Shaykh : Transitional, confirmed, my brothers? Confirmed, that it is a transitional transition. And the difference between the transitional transition and the negating transition is that in the negating transition, the first is cancelled and the emphasis is on the second. But in the transitional, the first remains as it is, and the second is a new beginning, a new beginning with no relation to the first.
Who? O Muhammad, or say, O one to whom the address is valid? A question meaning negation. The answer: No, those who know are not equal to those who do not know. And this is general in all knowledge, so the knowledgeable and the ignorant are not equal, even in the knowledge of carpentry, blacksmithing, chemistry, and others. The one who knows and the one who does not know are not equal. But this does not necessitate that the knowledgeable is praised. It does not necessitate that the knowledgeable is praised, because among the sciences, there are some whose ignorance is better than their knowledge. So if the knowledge is blameworthy and we say: “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” then the non-knowledgeable is better. And if the knowledge is praiseworthy and we say: “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” then the knowledgeable is better. Okay, if this word or this phrase comes in the knowledge of the Shari’ah?
The student: The knowledgeable is better.

The Shaykh : The knowledgeable is better. In the knowledge of grammar?
The student: The knowledgeable is better.

The Shaykh : Okay, in the knowledge of Kalam?
The student: The ignorant is better.

The Shaykh : The ignorant is better. Yes, as some of the Salaf said: Ignorance of Kalam is knowledge. Ignorance of Kalam is knowledge, because the knowledge of Kalam led its people to perils, until even the great scholars of them wish, while in the throes of death, that they had died upon the religion of the old women. And the religion of the old women is safer, even if it is ignorance, but it is safer than knowledge that leads them—seeking refuge in Allah—to doubt and confusion. Okay, And this is from the verses that are few in words but many in meaning, because it can be applied to every knowledge, but is this knowledge praiseworthy or blameworthy according to the situation? “That is, they are not equal, just as the” What?
The student: The knowledgeable and the ignorant

The Shaykh : The knowledgeable and the ignorant. “What is this talk? Do you have a marginal note... If it said ‘knowledge and ignorance,’ it would be clearer.”
The student: It was not mentioned, O Shaykh. It was not spoken, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No, no. What was before it?