Exegesis of the verse: ((Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah and kill the prophets without right...))

Then Allah the Exalted said: In this verse, there are two readings in two words. First: has a reading . Second: has a reading . All right. Allah the Exalted said: , whether cosmic or legislative. "Ayat" is the plural of "ayah," and in the language, it means a sign. These cosmic signs that we observe are things that humans cannot create anything like. They are a sign of Allah, a sign indicating that the Creator is One with no partner, and that nothing resembles Him. If all people were to gather to create a single mountain, they would not be able to, or to create a single animal, they would not be able to. The legislative signs of Allah are also such that humans cannot produce anything like them. The legislative signs are the indicators that the One who revealed these signs is a single God, and that He is perfect in wisdom. As for those who disbelieve in these signs, Allah Mighty and Majestic, after mentioning multiple conjoined items, says: But how is disbelief? How can one disbelieve in Allah? We say, first, regarding the cosmic signs? Disbelief in the cosmic signs is denying Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) from what He created, or claiming that the One who created them is other than Allah. This is one thing. Or that He has a partner in His creation, or that He has a helper in His creation. All right, three things. Disbelief in the legislative signs? Disbelief is either through denial or through arrogance. Yes, either by denying them and calling them lies, or by arrogance and stubbornness. And among the denial of them or the arrogance toward them is the distortion of the texts, for the distortion of the texts is a type of disbelief without a doubt. Allah the Exalted says: They kill the prophets whom Allah sent to them without right. The prophets here include the messengers and those of the prophets who were not sent as messengers. This characteristic was found most among the Jews, for the Jews are the most stubborn of those who opposed the messengers and the harshest of them—and may Allah protect us from that—so some of them killed the prophets without right and worshipped the taghut. And here it says: This characteristic is not intended to exclude what contradicts it, but rather to clarify the reality and to indicate that this killing was an aggression. Two things are intended by it: First, clarifying the reality that they kill them while they are not in the right, meaning they do not kill them by way of retaliation, for example. Second, that their killing was in vain, without right. Otherwise, there is no killing of any of the prophets with right. And in a reading: , "those who enjoin justice among the people"? The messengers and other than the messengers. The scholars enjoin justice among the people. The Rightly Guided Caliphs enjoin justice among the people. The prophets enjoin justice among the people. And thus, its conjoining to the prophets is from the category of conjoining the general to the specific. But they specified the prophets because their killing is greater than the killing of others. So there is nothing, no killing is a greater crime than the killing of the prophets. Yes, without right. , meaning with justice. includes the prophets and others. And it has passed us: if the general is conjoined to the specific, or the specific to the general, does this indicate excluding the specific from the general ruling? Or does it indicate specifying it for its importance, so that it is mentioned twice? The second is closer: it is mentioned twice, once by way of generality and once by way of specificity. But they specified it among the other individuals, or repeated the ruling upon it among the other individuals, out of care and attention for it. The address is either to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or to everyone whose speech is arrogant, and He informed them. The punishment is the penalty, and means painful. Is this good news on the way of mockery of these people? Or is it from the category of likening the good news of what is distressing to the good news of what is pleasing, with the common factor that each of them affects the skin and changes it? The reality allows for this and that. But if we say it is from the category of mockery, then it is derived from that an increase of pain for these people who are being given good news, like His saying, the Exalted: , meaning say to him, "Taste." Indeed, this word or sentence, without a doubt, reaches the utmost in his heart, for he will remember where the honor was and where the generosity was. Where was the honor by which he prevailed, and the generosity by which he was generous? It will be more severe in its impact and more regrettable that he missed this description, which in the worldly life he considered himself to be among its people.