Al-Fatihah: (2) "Al-hamdu lillahi Rabbi..."

Since the All-Glorious and Exalted has opened His Book with the Basmala, which is a form of praise (hamd), it was appropriate that He should follow it with the all-encompassing hamd, which gathers all its particulars and attains the highest degrees of perfection. Therefore, He, the Exalted, said: (Al-hamdu lillahi Rabbi al-‘alamin). This is the beginning of the Fatihah and the end of the final invocations, as the Almighty said: “And their final invocation will be: ‘Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.’” Love is a circle in my heart; its beginning and its end are identical. It was said to al-Junayd—may his secret be sanctified—"What is the end?" He replied, "The return to the beginning." In this, there are various secrets.

Praise (al-hamd), according to the well-known definition, is laudation with the tongue for something beautiful, whether it pertains to virtues (fada’il) or favors (fawadil). They have stated that for its realization, five elements are necessary: the one being praised (mahmud bihi), that for which he is being praised (mahmud ‘alayhi), the praiser (hamid), the praised one (mahmud), and that which indicates the praised one's characterization by the attribute.

As for the first, it is an attribute that manifests the thing’s characterization in a specific way; it must be an attribute of perfection, even if only perceived as such, for the basis is glorification. According to Imam al-Razi—may his secret be sanctified—there is no distinction between whether it is positive or negative, transitive or intransitive, nor whether it originates from the praised one by his choice or not, as established by the scholar al-Dawani and the masters of the Hawashi al-Tajrid and al-Matali’, and asserted by the researcher Mulla Khusraw, who claimed it to be the most popular view. However, the scholar in Sharh al-Tahdhib reported from some that it must be volitional, and he chose this view.

As for the mahmud ‘alayhi (the basis for praise), just as praise is not heard for the gracefulness of a figure or the radiance of a cheek, praise is not heard through them. Furthermore, the lack of praise for a pearl—just as it may be due to the state of the one praised—it may also be due to the praised attribute itself, so making it evidence for only one of them is arbitrary.

The second is that for which the praise occurs; it corresponds to it in the sense that when the praised one is characterized by it, he manifests his perfection, and without it, that would not be realized. Thus, it is like the motivating cause. Sometimes, a single thing is the mahmud bihi (the praise itself) and the mahmud ‘alayhi (the basis) simultaneously; if one sees someone giving or praying, he manifests his characterization by that. Thus, both occur due to two different aspects. It must be a perfection in the manner previously mentioned. The consensus of the majority implies that it is broader than just an action issuing from the praised one or a quality inherent in him. The Imam’s words are understood as choosing the former, requiring that its realization from the praised one be by his choice.

Objections were raised regarding praise for His—the Almighty’s—essential attributes, whether considered identical to His Essence or additional to it. The response is that the praise for them is by deeming them in the position of volitional acts, since His Essence is sufficient for them; or that the intent by "volitional act" is that which is attributed to the Choosing Agent, whether He is choosing in it or not. It is also said: They issue by choice in the sense that if He wills, He acts, and if He does not will, He does not act—not in the sense of the validity of acting or refraining. Or, in the sense that the attributes issue by choice, and His precedence over them is essential, so their origination does not follow. It is also said that regarding human praise, the intent is that its genus is volitional, as was said regarding the constraint of the tongue.

However, the first is countered by the fact that it is only sound if it were customary in volitional acts for the agent to be independent in creating them without needing anything else, like tools, to manifest the rectitude of the analogy. This is not the case, for a volitional act requires knowledge and power, and many require tools and causes. The second is contrary to the obvious. The third is a meaning claimed by the philosophers when they argued for the eternity of the world due to necessity (ijab), which necessitates that its Creator has no will. They said the truth of a conditional does not necessitate the existence of its antecedent or its non-existence; the antecedent of the first—relative to the existence of the world—is perpetually occurring, and the antecedent of the second is perpetually non-occurring. For this reason, "Maker" (al-sani’) is applied to Him, which refers to one who has the will. But this is like "a glass vessel," because what is by will, its existence is possible relative to the Agent’s Essence. If "perpetuity" is intended alongside the validity of the occurrence of the opposite, it contradicts what they explicitly stated regarding the necessity of the world, such that it is not valid for its non-occurrence to proceed from Him. If it is intended alongside the impossibility of occurrence, then there is nothing of "will" left but its word, and its object has no escape from origination; yet, the world, according to them, is eternal.

As for the fourth, that characterization of the attributes by issuance, if it were explained to direct the issuance, the problem remains regarding the attribute of "Power," and there is no power to claim its issuance by choice; otherwise, the thing would have to precede itself. As for the fifth, those attributes are sanctified from being associated with human attributes in genus; how can the Eternal be compared to the perishable? Moreover, in what is discussed there is a contradiction to what is intuitively obvious. Due to the abundance of debate, some did not stipulate that the mahmud ‘alayhi must be volitional, because it is the motivation for praise, and what prevents it from not being so? Among that is: “It may be that your Lord will raise you to a praised station,” and "At dawn, the traveler is praised," and "I kept company with him, yet I did not praise his company," and "Patience is praised in all places, except regarding you, for it is blameworthy." The true reality that must be followed is that linguistic praise is only for volitional acts. Praise for essential attributes is either linguistic, referring to the volitional effects resulting from them, or conventional. There is no harm in its attachment to them. Regarding the mentioned examples, the praise in them is a metaphor for satisfaction. It is said regarding the verse, in addition to that, that mahmud is a state (hal) from the accusative pronoun or an epithet (na’t) for maqaman, and the meaning is: the Prophet is praised in it for his intercession, or Allah is praised for His favoring him with the permission. We shall, God willing, investigate this later.

(The third) element is the one from whom the praise originates. Its condition is that he be glorifying the praised one with his laudation, both outwardly and inwardly, as the Master established. Indeed, the belief in the praised one's characterization by beauty is not required according to the researchers; rather, the condition is the absence of any concomitant contempt. Thus, describing something by what is definitely known to be absent enters into it, and it does not contradict it. As al-Dawani said in directing the Sharif’s stipulating of the two glorifications: if it is devoid of conforming to belief, it is not praise, but mockery. He meant by "belief" its necessary consequence, which is the initiation of glorification, not its real meaning. Praise can be insha’i (performative), and there is no meaning to conforming to belief in it, because what belief does not relate to cannot be truly described as conforming to it, since the obvious meaning of that is unification in affirmation and negation or what necessitates it. Therefore, it is only found in propositions, which is why you never hear anyone say that a concept "conforms" to it. Indeed, if someone were to say that the concept of "Strike!" (idrib) conforms to belief, he would be turning away from it, and it might even be attributed to what he dislikes. Carrying "conformity" on this interpretation is more plausible than committing to the characterization of concepts by conformity or non-conformity, as there is nothing in it but mentioning the necessary and desiring the consequence. Furthermore, people of general custom may apply "belief" in this sense, saying, "So-and-so has a belief in so-and-so," and they mean what we meant. There is no remoteness in it, because people consider the description by beauty—even if known to be absent—as praise and commendation, as in many poems.

(As for the answer) that the describer believes in the characterization, and that the intent is metaphorical meanings and the characterization of the described by them is believed, it is refuted by the fact that the first is contrary to intuition, and the second is contrary to reality. The answer to the first is that if it were contrary to intuition, the wise would not intend to convey it, and the expression would not be used in its real meaning. And to the second, that if it were contrary to reality, it would not be used in its metaphorical meaning, so it would follow that such speech is neither reality nor metaphor. This is a claim arising from narrow-mindedness, as it does not follow from the lack of belief in the signified that the speech is not used for it. Non-believed reporting—like the saying of a Sunni, hidden in his state: "The servant is the creator of his acts"—is used in its reality, yet not believed; indeed, all the lies that their people rely upon are the same. Then, the responder carried "the first is contrary to intuition" to mean that the content of those reports is contrary to it, and he branched from it that it follows that the wise would not intend to convey it. This is refuted, for the lies that a wise person relies upon may contradict intuition while intending to convey them for a purpose, such as exaggeration, witticism, testing, or for imagination, as in many propositions, until some researchers said: "It does not follow that such speech is neither reality nor metaphor," and in this, there is contemplation.

(The fourth) element is the Praised One, and you have known what is stipulated for Him.

(The fifth) element is the mention of what indicates the characterization of the praised one by praise-worthiness. It has become famous to limit this to the tongue, and by this, the organ of speech is intended. Since the reality is that the instrument of speech is, in the majority, that organ, they limited it to it. If a person were to lose his tongue and then praise with his labial letters, or if speech were created in some of his other limbs and he praised with it—as witnessed in one whose entire tongue was cut—it is praise. The implication of the limitation is that what issues from one who has no organ is not praise. Yet the Almighty said: “And there is not a thing but it glorifies Him with His praise.” As for Allah—the Almighty—praising Himself, for instance, the majority held that it is an informing of the deservedness of praise and a command for it, or it is uttered upon the tongues of the servants, or it is a metaphor for the manifestation of the attributes of perfection, which is the ultimate goal of praise. The Sayyid leaned toward the latter and said: "That praise, in His case—the Almighty—is a metaphor is far from the rule of the People of Truth regarding the affirmation of Speech to Him in reality, and the 'saying' (qawl) is synonymous with speech." Thus, the most apparent view is that the limitation to the tongue is relative, to contrast with the heart and the limbs, and the intent is the matter whose source is the tongue in the majority. Or, it is a majority constraint that permits usage. A word may be set in the original language for a general meaning and become famous for a specific one such that it becomes a conventional reality. The cause of fame is either the frequent circulation of that individual, as in "the beast" (al-dabbah), or the lack of awareness of another individual, so the people of the language use it for that individual until, if it continues and another application is not discovered, it is thought to be set for it exclusively, as in "the scale" (al-mizan), for it was originally set for the instrument of weighing. Then, whoever knows only what has a tongue and a pillar might assert that it is set for that alone, not knowing that behind it are scales. This applies to many words. The matter of derivatives is hardly hidden from anyone with the slightest intelligence due to its clarity in returning to the rule of derivation. As for others, it may be confusing to the masses, and by this, many of the truths of the Book and the Sunnah are lost, for most of them are brought upon the origin of the language. According to this, measure al-hamd. Its reality, according to them, is the manifestation of the attributes of perfection. Since verbal manifestation is the most apparent of its kinds and the most famous among the commoners, the usage of the word al-hamd became widespread in it until it became as if it were a metaphor in others, even though, by origin, it is more general. Indeed, active manifestation is stronger and more complete, and it is more worthy and suitable for this name, as is the case in the doctrine of tashkik (gradation of being).

They distinguished between al-hamd (praise) and al-madh (commendation) by several matters: (One) Al-hamd is specific to praise for a volitional act for those with knowledge, while al-madh is for volitional and non-volitional, and for those with knowledge and others, as one says, "I praised the pearl for its quality." (Two and Three) Al-hamd requires that it issue from knowledge, not conjecture, and that the praised attributes be attributes of perfection. Al-madh may be from conjecture and for a commendable quality, even if it has some deficiency. (Four) In al-hamd, there is a level of glorification and majesty that is not in al-madh, and it is more specific to the rational and the great, and more often applied to Allah, the Almighty. (Five) Al-hamd is an informing about the beauties of the other with love and reverence, while al-madh is an informing about beauties. Thus, al-hamd is an informative statement that includes a performative aspect, while al-madh is purely informative. (Six) Al-hamd is commanded absolutely; in the tradition: "Whoever does not praise people does not praise Allah," while al-madh is not so: "Throw dust in the faces of the praisers."

Al-Zamakhshari’s words in al-Kashshaf and al-Fa’iq imply their synonymy. In the first, he says they are "brothers," and he made the opposite of al-madh—that is, al-dham (blame)—the opposite of al-hamd. In the second, al-hamd is al-madh and description by beauty. So al-madh, according to him, is specific to the volitional, and he interpreted al-madh by beauty and the radiance of the face. It is possible that "brothers" means there is a great derivation between them, such that they share the root letters without order, like jabd and jadb, and that litterateurs permit defining by the more general, and the opposite there is in the linguistic sense. It is also possible that a single thing is the opposite for two things between which there is a relation of general and specific in this sense, not by negating what we said. Indeed, if you are fair, you will almost assert that al-Zamakhshari claims synonymy. Do not be provoked by these possibilities, for they are like a mirage in a plain. Yes, this statement is far from him, for he is the Sheikh of Arabic and its champion. The truth, from which one should not deviate, is that al-madh is for the non-volitional. It is as if, for this reason, He, the All-Glorious, did not say "Al-madh is for Allah," as they said, manifesting that Allah is a volitional Agent, and in that is the encouragement and warning appropriate to the station of the mission and the communication, the matter of which is not hidden.

(As for al-shukr - gratitude), it is also distinct from al-hamd, although some limited it to action and al-hamd to the tongue. Some made it for outward favors and others for inward favors. Others claimed its specificity to the act of the tongue like al-hamd in the famous view, but it is for the favor. The speech of al-Raghib points to this. It is known that it is what is in return for it, by saying with the tongue, action and service with the limbs, and belief and love with the heart. Al-Tibi said: "This is the convention of the people of the fundamentals, for they say 'gratitude to the Benefactor is obligatory' and they mean by it the obligation of worship, which is not complete except with these three. Otherwise, linguistic gratitude is only with the tongue." This is not good, for the outward appearance of the Book and the Sunnah applies al-shukr to other than the tongue. The Almighty said: “Work, O house of David, in gratitude.” Al-Tabarani narrated from al-Nawas bin Sam’an that the she-camel of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was stolen. He said, "If Allah returns her to me, I will be grateful to my Lord." When she was returned, he said, "Al-hamdu lillahi," so they waited to see if he would perform fasting or prayer, and they thought he had forgotten. They asked him, and he said, "Did I not say 'Al-hamdu lillahi'?" If they had not understood, may Allah be pleased with them, the application of al-shukr to action, they would not have waited for it. Some added to the divisions of al-shukr a fourth, which is the gratitude of Allah to Himself by Himself; no one is grateful to Him with His true right of gratitude except Himself. The author of al-Tajrid mentioned this and cited: "My gratitude to the people of benevolence, sometimes with the heart, and at other times with the tongue, then with action... and my gratitude to my Lord is not with my heart and my obedience, nor with my tongue, but by Him we are grateful for us." That upon which there is consensus is the threefold division. In any case, between it and al-hamd there is a general and specific relationship from one perspective, and al-hamd is stronger in its branch because its reality is the spreading of the favor and uncovering it, just as kufr (ingratitude) is hiding and veiling it. This is more complete by tongue because belief is a thing hidden in itself, and the action of the limbs, even if outward, may admit the opposite of what was intended. How great is the difference between "I praised Allah," "I thanked Him," "I glorified Him," and "I magnified Him," and the acts of worship. They are all in conformity with custom, and the tongue of the state is more eloquent than the tongue of speech—an idda’i (assertive) matter, as is known in its likes. For this reason, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said in what was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with both: "Al-hamd is the head of shukr; no servant is grateful to Allah who does not praise Him." Even if this has a disconnection, it has a witness that strengthens it. Since speech clarifies every confused matter, and al-hamd is the most apparent and famous of the types, such that if it is lost, what is besides it is equivalent to nothing, he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—likened it to the head, which is the most apparent, highest, and essential organ, and the pillar for their survival. It is as if, for this reason, the Lord, the Almighty, brought it so that it would be the head for the Chief, and so that the precious would open with the precious. Or, because if He, the Almighty, had said "Al-shukr lillahi," it would be praise for Him—the Almighty—because of a favor that reached that speaker, while "Al-hamdu lillahi" is not so. Thus, it is higher in status and more apparent in servitude.

It is possible to say that al-shukr is for giving, which is finite, while al-hamd is for the favor and also for the withheld, which is infinite. Thus, starting with gratitude for the removal of the affliction, which has no end, is on a side of beauty that has no end, and repelling harm is more important than attracting benefit; so its precedence is more appropriate. Also, the object of al-hamd in the famous view is specific, and its concern is general, while al-shukr is the opposite, in object or concern. In bringing it without the other, there is a divine indication and a hidden subtlety for those of the multitude. "And to Allah return all affairs." It is as if, for the sake of observing this indication, He did not bring "Tasbih" (glorification), even though it is prior to al-hamd, for it is said: "Subhanallah" and "Al-hamdu lillah." Granted that tasbih is included in tahmid (praise), but not the reverse, for the first indicates that He—the Almighty—is absolved in His Essence and Attributes from deficiencies, and the second points to Him being a Benefactor to the servants. He is not a Benefactor to them unless He is Knowing, Powerful, and Rich, so that He knows the places of needs, is able to obtain what they need, and is not distracted by the need of Himself from the need of another—if you deny, and I do not think so, we said: "Every tasbih is hamd, but not every hamd is tasbih," because tasbih is by negative attributes alone, while hamd is by them and the positive ones, as previously mentioned. Thus, it is more knowing than it by that consideration. He opened with it because, due to its comprehensiveness and universality, it is more consistent with the state of the Quran. The precedence of tasbih there is for another purpose, and for every station is a saying. The definite article (al-) here is for the genus, and its meaning is pointing to what everyone knows of what al-hamd is, similar to the saying of Labid describing the wild donkey and his mate: "He sent them into the fight and did not restrain them, nor did he fear for the offspring of the interior."

Upon this, a group of them, including al-Zamakhshari, agreed, even saying that the "comprehensiveness" (istighraq) that many people imagine is a delusion. This has become a battleground for understandings and a crowded space for the thoughts of prominent scholars. It was said: it is built upon the issue of the creation of acts. Since the acts of the servants, according to the Mu’tazila, are created by them, the praises for them return to them, so it is not valid to limit all praises to Him—the Almighty. It was countered that the specificity of the genus necessitates the specificity of its individuals also, for if an individual of it were found for another, the genus would be proven for him within it. This is sound according to them because the good acts for which praise is deserved are only by Allah's power and empowerment; by this consideration, the whole matter returns to Him. As for praise of another, it is a consideration that the favor flowed upon his hand. It was said that the genus in the address was turned to the Perfect, as if it were the whole reality. It was countered that this is also permitted in istighraq by making the praises of others equivalent to nothing; so there is no difference between the specificity of the genus and istighraq in their apparent contradiction to his doctrine, and their defense is by subtle consideration. It was said that its foundation is that verbal nouns take the place of verbs, and they do not exceed their indication from reality to istighraq. It was countered that this does not contradict the intention of istighraq by the help of circumstantial evidence. It was said that he chose it based on it being the obviously prevalent, especially in verbal nouns and when evidence is hidden. It was countered that the noun with the definite article for the genus in address-contexts obviously implies istighraq, which is the prevalent view there absolutely. What station is more worthy of observing universality and istighraq than the station of specializing al-hamd for Him—the Almighty—for glorification? Thus, the evidence of istighraq is like a fire upon a landmark. The truth is that the reason for the choice is that the specificity of the genus is derived from the essence of the speech and necessitates the specificity of all individuals; thus, there is no need in performing the purpose of proving al-hamd for Him and its negation from other than Him to observe it with the help of external matters. Rather, we say according to his choice, the specificity of the individuals is by way of demonstration; thus, it is stronger than proving it initially. In this is that the understanding of the specificity of the genus from the essence of the speech indicates its speed, which is the meaning of "obviousness" (tabadur). It was refuted. Also, if the specificity is by way of demonstration, there is no doubt in its hiddenness, so where is the fire and where is the landmark? Other things were said. It is not remote to say that al-Zamakhshari’s choice—that the definition is for the genus and the saying of istighraq is a delusion—might be the observance of a Mu’tazilite tendency and for an Arabic subtlety, for he made the original meaning: "We praise Allah with praise," and claimed that "You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help" is an explanation for their praise, as if it were said: "How do you praise Me?" then it was said: "You alone we worship..." then it was asked and answered. It was said in directing this: when its meaning was "We praise Allah with praise," it was an informing of the proof of unspecified praise from the speaker to Him, on the condition that the verbal noun is for count, so it was appropriate to say: "How do you praise Him?" i.e., "Clarify the manner of your praise, for it is unknown." So he explained it by His saying: "You alone we worship, etc.," i.e., "We say these words and we praise Him with this praise." Thus, the question arose about the definition, for what is appropriate for ambiguity, then explanation, is the indefinite. He answered that it is for the definition of the genus from the perspective of its existence in an unspecified individual; that is why he explained. It was said that when the meaning was "We praise with praise," the verbal noun was for emphasis; thus, it would indicate the reality without indication of individuality. The implicit question about the manner of the issuance of that reality, and the answer: "We praise with praise accompanied by the action of the limbs and the action of the heart, and we do not limit ourselves to mere speech." Then, it was objected that it is for the benefit of this indefinite verbal noun, so what is the benefit of the definition? He answered that it is a definition for the genus to point to the essence known to the addressee from the perspective of what it is. According to these two directions, his choice of the genus and his prevention of istighraq is for the observance of his doctrine. The specificity on the first is the specificity of the individual, and on the second is the specificity of the genus by consideration of perfection. It is not hidden that the objection of the Sa’d collapses then, for the two specificities are inseparable, and each of them is contrary to his doctrine apparently and consistent with it interpretively. Thus, the observance of doctrine is not a cause for choosing the genus without istighraq. The objection of the Sayyid on the second does not apply—that just as it is allowed to carry it to the genus by consideration of perfection according to his doctrine, it is allowed to carry it to istighraq by consideration of deeming the praises of others equivalent to nothing—because that involves lengthening the distance and resorting to the help of the station without need. It was said that the outcome of the answer regarding the manner of the issuance of that reality is by specializing worship, which includes praise and other things, because the inclusion of other things with it is a type of explanation of its manner, i.e., "the state of our praise is that we combine it with the rest of the worship of the limbs and seeking help in important matters, and we specialize the totality for You." The estimation of the question and the answer is in its state. Then it is not valid that the choice be for observance, because the two specificities are inseparable, but because al-hamd is a verbal noun that took the place of the verb, and it does not indicate anything but reality, so the same for what takes its place, even if it is defined, so that its explanation by "You alone we worship" may be valid. The carrying to istighraq invalidates the substitution, for the speech would be driven to explain universality, and the explanation would not be valid. This choice is derived from making "You alone we worship" an explanation for their praise. Perhaps what called him to it is the omission of the conjunction, so he thought it is for that reason it is nothing but an explanation, and this is from reversing, for making the beginning a follower of the end is more appropriate than the reverse. The researchers on the truth are for generalizing al-hamd, and the separation is because the first speech is current on the commendation of the Absent due to His deservedness of all praise, and the second is current on the narration about the praiser himself and the explanation of his states before the Hidden, the Manifest, the First, and the Last. So, the conjunction was omitted to differentiate between the two states, not for explanation. This is indicated by the fact that the best iltifat (shift of person) is for the movement to be from one of the two forms to the other in a single context for a single Known One, and there is no explanation for it on the explanation. Moreover, making "You alone we worship" an explanation might contradict what he claimed—that shukr is with the heart, the limbs, and the tongue, and hamd is with the latter—for worship is with all of them, so it follows that hamd is likewise. Also, the following of these attributes to al-hamd is an indication that His deservedness for it is due to His characterization by them, and it has been established that in the pairing of the appropriate description with the ruling is an indication of causality. Here, the attributes, in their totality, included universality, so the universality should be in al-hamd also, for shukr necessitates the Benefactor, the benefited, and the favor. The Benefactor is Allah, the Almighty, and the Greatest Name is inclusive of the meanings of the Beautiful Names, what is known of them and what is not. The benefited are the worlds, and it includes every genus of what He is named with, and the cause of the favors is al-Rahman al-Rahim, and it has encompassed what it encompassed. Thus, it does not call for the specificity of the ruling to some except by arbitrariness or delusion. This, and if I were left to my nature, I would not prevent "Al" from being for the reality as it is, as in their saying "The man is better than the woman," or for it from the perspective of its existence in an unspecified individual, as in "enter the market," or for it in all individuals, which is istighraq, as in “Verily, mankind is in loss.” The saying that this station refuses istighraq because the specificity of the reality of al-hamd for Him is more eloquent than the specificity of its individuals, collectively and individually, because the first necessitates the second, and following the way of demonstration is more fulfilling to the right of rhetoric. Also, the origin of the speech is "We praise Allah, the Almighty, with praise," and our praise is some, not all. In the specificity of the genus, there is an indication that the praise of every praiser for every praised one is praise for Allah, the Almighty, in reality, for he only praised him for the attributes of perfection bestowed upon him from the True Giver, the Almighty, the Exalted. Thus, it is His act in reality, and praise for a beautiful act. Even if the Mu’tazili said in independence, he does not deny that the power and empowerment are from Him, the Almighty. So, it is possible for him from this side to generalize when there is an excuse for it. Al-Zamakhshari explicitly stated this in the beginning of al-Taghabun, saying regarding His saying—the Almighty: “To Him belongs the dominion and to Him the praise,” he brought the two prepositional phrases first to indicate by their precedence the meaning of the specificity of the dominion and the praise to Allah, the Almighty. Then he said: "As for the praise of another, it is a consideration that the favor of Allah, the Almighty, flowed upon his hand." It may also be said according to his doctrine that the istighraq praise cannot be specific; rather, it is the true complete hamd that is required by the execution of these attributes. Thus, the "Al" is for the reality, and the most complete of its types is intended. So it is from the door of "that is the Book" and "Hatim of generosity," because he is the one who deserves to be applied to the reality until it is as if he is the whole of it, not because they are for istighraq in the address-context and deeming others equivalent to nothing; for that is a lengthening of the distance while it is short—a speech I do not accept, even if its sayer is great. Men are known by the truth, and the truth is not known by men. How, and it is from the sunnah of Allah, the Almighty, which has no change, to execute the speech by way of address, even if it is demonstrative; for it is more effective in souls and more beneficial for the commoners of the people, as will come in its investigation, God willing, at His saying: “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction.” Thus, avoiding istighraq to avoid the address-station is a heedlessness of the Reader of the speech of Allah. Then, since the station required the subtleties of the favors and their tributaries, deeming the incomplete hamd equivalent to nothing was not from the requirements of the station. Al-Zamakhshari’s explicit statement in al-Taghabun about generalization is forbidden for the differentiation between the istighraq of external and mental individuals of hamd, the real and the metaphorical, the complete and the incomplete, and the specificity of the reality of hamd, as his saying feels: "And that is because the dominion in reality is for Him, and likewise hamd. So, just as he does not negate the dominion from another absolutely, so he does not negate hamd from him likewise." For it is from the doctrine of the Mu’tazila that the favor of Allah, the Almighty, is flowing upon the hand of the servant, but he is the creator of his favors, so he has a hamd befitting his creation, and Allah, the Almighty, has a hamd befitting His empowerment and bestowal, and it is the complete hamd specific to Him, the Exalted, not that one. In al-Kashshaf is what supports what we said for whoever contemplates. As for the report that the specificity of the reality of hamd is more eloquent than the specificity of the individuals because the first necessitates the second, it is answered that the specificity of the external and mental individuals, as we established, necessitates the specificity of the reality also, since no individual remains for it that is not specific. Where then does it exist? So the necessity is reversed. Moreover, the reality of hamd is described by hamd, so it is an individual of its individuals, as al-Damghani said: "So if all the individuals of hamd are specific to Him, its reality is also specific." The fact that the origin is "We praise Allah, the Almighty, with praise" is not a definitive rebuttal of the possibility of istighraq now, for the state has changed. If you contemplate after this, the veil of the problem will be lifted from you. I do not say that hamd wherever it occurs implies this, but if the station calls for it, we answer it. For this reason, they distinguished between this hamd and the hamd of the cattle, for the generality of the Lordship, the universality of the mercy, and the continuity of the dominion here require the istighraq of the individuals to fulfill the right of this Surah and out of keenness for the coherence of its composition, contrary to what is in that Surah, for the knowns are missing in it.

(It is strange) that some made it for the covenant. Al-Fakihi said: "I heard our sheikh Abu al-Abbas al-Mursi say to Ibn al-Nahhas: 'What do you say about the alif and lam in al-hamd? Is it generic or covenantal?' He said: 'O my master, they say it is generic.' I said to him: 'What I say is that it is covenantal; and that is because when Allah, the Almighty, knew the incapacity of His creation to comprehend His praise, He praised Himself by Himself in His eternity, substituting for His creation before they praised Him.' He said: 'I witness to you that it is covenantal.'" He sought comfort for this by what was authentically reported from him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—from his saying: "O Allah, we do not enumerate praise upon You; You are as You have praised Yourself." Stranger than this is what some of our Sufi masters—may Allah, the Almighty, sanctify their secrets—went to, and it is not strange according to them, that al-hamd is for Allah on the limit of "Grandeur is for Allah" and “To Him belongs the creation and the command.” So He is the Praiser and the Praised, and all are His affairs. They have speech other than this, and all are watered by one water. From our Imam al-Maturidi—may Allah, the Almighty, perfume his soul—it is reported that he made this a praise from Allah, the Almighty, for Himself. He said: "He only praised Himself so that the creation would know, and there is no harm in that, for He—the Almighty—is the one deserving in His Essence and the reality of what is there, for no defect touches Him and no calamity descends upon Him."

(Then, al-hamd) in what was recurrently transmitted is in the nominative, and it is a subject whose predicate is lillah (to Allah). Al-Hasan al-Basri and Zayd bin ‘Ali read al-hamdu lillahi by following the dal with the lam, and Ibrahim bin ‘Abla and the people of the desert with the reverse. This was permitted as usage, not that the following only happens in one word; for by the abundance of their being used together, they were deemed in the position of one word. There was a disagreement in the preference, with the consensus on the anomaly. It was said: Ibrahim’s reading is easier for two reasons. One, that following the second with the first is easier than the reverse, even if it occurred as in madda and shadda, aqbala and adkhala, because it is like the cause and the effect, and the cause should be prior in rank to the effect. Two, the vowel of the dal is i’rab (inflection) and the vowel of the lam is bina’ (immutability), and the sanctity of i’rab is stronger than the sanctity of bina’, and the prevalent is the victory of the stronger over the weaker. It was said: Al-Hasan’s reading is better because the majority made the second a follower, because what has passed has gone, and because making the non-necessary a follower of the necessary is more appropriate. Rectitude is the essence of dignity. As if because of the contradiction of the preference, al-Zamakhshari said: "The most curative of the two readings is the reading of Ibrahim," and he expressed with "most curative" (ashaffa), and it is from the opposites. Harun bin Musa read al-hamda lillahi in the accusative, and the generality of Banu Tamim and many of the Arabs accuse the verbal nouns with the alif and lam. This is by an omitted verb, which they estimated as "We praise" with the nun of the collective, because it is uttered upon the tongues of the servants and is appropriate for "We worship" and "We ask for help," not the nun of grandeur because of its inappropriateness for the station of worship, which requires the utmost humbleness and submissiveness. It is permitted that it be from the door of "And if they speak about her, my ears are all ears, and if I speak to them, tongues recite." Al-Ghazali—may his secret be sanctified—carried the tradition "Prayer in congregation is better than the individual prayer by twenty-seven degrees" upon this. The highest, however, is the reading of the nominative for the indication of the nominal sentence of constancy and perpetuity by the consideration of the station, contrary to the verbal, for it indicates renewal and origination, even if there is a prepositional phrase there. If its object is estimated as a noun, it is apparent; otherwise, it was said: the verbal predicate only benefits origination if it is explicitly stated. It was also said: there is no estimation, and what the grammarians mentioned is for a technical matter that necessitated it, like their saying "The prepositional phrase is the shortening of the verbal." It was said: the nominal sentence by itself does not indicate that, but with the joining of the "turning away," and if it pleases you, then stick to it, for it was said: "Turning away here," but this is not in the speech of Sheikh Abd al-Qahir. Rather, whoever contemplates his speech in the discussion of the state from the proofs is repelled by the strongest proof—the state that appeared to the observers. Their saying: "The present tense benefits continuity" meant by it the renewed continuity in the future, not in all times, so it does not contradict what we said. He chose the nominal sentence here in answer to the caller of the station. More than one has said that the origin of this verbal noun is the accusative because verbal nouns are events related to their places; thus, it necessitates that they indicate their relation to them. The origin in the explanation of the relation in the related matters is the verbs, so it should be observed with them. This is supported by the abundance of the accusative in some of them and its adherence in others. Sometimes, they are put in the place of their verbs, so they take their place and fulfill their right in wording and meaning; thus, mentioning them with them is like the abrogated law, disliked by those who are religious in the dogmas of language.

(Here remain matters) (First) It was disagreed upon: is the sentence of al-hamd informative or performative? What the majority of scholars are upon is that it is informative, as the obvious requires, because of what follows on the performative of the negation of characterization by beauty before the praise of the praiser. The harm is that the performative accompanies its meaning in existence, and the necessary is false, so the necessitated is like it. It is not objected that the intention is the origination of hamd, not informing of its constancy, because informing of the constancy of all praises for Allah, the Almighty, is the essence of hamd, just as your saying "Allah is One" is the essence of monotheism. The scholar al-Bukhari wrote in al-Intisar for that, and he refuted those who claimed it is performative. Ibn al-Humam took interest and extended in it, and was concerned with refuting it. He mentioned that what was mentioned is false because the necessary from the accompaniment is the negation of the descriptor’s attribute, not the characterization, since hamd is the manifestation of attributes, not their constancy. Also, the informant of hamd is not called "a praiser" (hamid), for it is not coined linguistically for the informant about another from the related informings and a name, definitely. So it is not said to the speaker "Zayd has standing," "He is a stander." If hamd were purely informative, it would not be said to the speaker "Praise to Allah" that he is a praiser. This is false. Yes, it seems that it follows that every informant is a performative, since he is a describer of reality and a manifestor of it, and this is a delusion. For in hamd is taken, with the mention of reality, that it is by way of glorification, and this is not part of the essence of the news, so the two realities are different. Thus, the sentence is performative, inevitably. Mulla Khusraw said: "It and its likes are informative linguistically, and the Lawgiver transferred it to the performative for the benefit of the rulings." It was objected to its being performative that istighraq contradicts it and necessitates that the praiser is a performative for every hamd, and it is impossible to perform hamd that is inherent in another. It was answered that there is no contradiction and no necessity, and it is sufficient that he is a performative for the informing that every hamd is constant for Him and he is praised by it. The one I am satisfied with is that it is informative, as the majority are upon it, and "the hand of Allah, the Almighty, is with the congregation." The intent is informing that Allah, the Almighty, is deserving of hamd, as He—the Almighty—said: “To Him is the praise in the first and the last.” The one who utters it from belief is describing his Lord, the Almighty, by beauty and glorifying Him, the Exalted. Thus, he is called a praiser, not for the mere informing of what contains the word hamd, but if he changed the form to what does not contain that word from what is included in the description by beauty with the intention of glorification, he is also called a praiser. Thus, hamd has various forms and many expressions, until the confession of incapacity for hamd was made one of them. It was reported that David, peace be upon him, said: "O Lord, how can I thank You, when gratitude is from Your favors?" He said: "O David, when you knew your incapacity for My gratitude, you have thanked Me." What Ibn al-Humam mentioned first—that the informant of hamd is not called a praiser—if he meant that the informant from the perspective that he is an informant is not called that, it is accepted, and the proof is complete; but we are far from this claim. If he meant that the informant absolutely, even if he intended glorification, is not called that, it is forbidden, and there is no approximation in the proof, as is not hidden. What he mentioned second, from his saying "Yes, etc.," the defense of it is known from the hidden corners of our speech. What Mulla Khusraw mentioned, it is objected to it that the transfer in the likes of what we are in without necessity is forbidden. Do not think from this speech of mine that I prevent hamd from being a performative sentence at all—may Allah forbid—but I say that the sentence here is informative, and hamd is valid by it based on what we mentioned. The discussion still needs editing, and perhaps Allah, the Almighty, will grant us success for it in its proper places. The opinion of Allah, the Almighty, is good.

(Second) It has become common to ask about the meaning of the praise of the servants for Allah, the Almighty, even though their hamd is originated and He—the Almighty—is the All-Powerful, and it is not valid for the originated to be inherent in Him. It was answered that the intent is the attachment of hamd to Him, the Almighty, and it does not follow from attachment that it is inherent, like the attachment of knowledge to known things; so the problem does not arise at all. It was said that al-hamd is a verbal noun in the passive construction; so what is constant for Him, the Exalted, is the praise-worthiness, and the form of the verbal noun admits that and others. For this reason, some made in "Al-hamdu lillahi" in the beginnings of books forty-two possibilities. It was said—and it is strange—that the lam is for causality, i.e., al-hamd is constant for the sake of Allah, the Almighty.

(Third) That He brought the name of the Essence in "Al-hamdu lillah" lest it be imagined, if He limited Himself to the attribute, the specificity of His deservedness of hamd by one attribute without another. That is because the lam, as it was said, is for deservedness; so when it is said "Al-hamdu lillah," it benefits the deservedness of the Essence for it. If it is attached to an attribute, it benefits the deservedness of the Essence characterized by that attribute for it, and the specificity is the benefit of the definition. Because the specificity is like this, a ruling that is false in itself, it was made an imagined one, not because attaching the ruling to the attribute indicates causality, not specificity, for it is derived from defining the subject (musnad ilayh). The meaning of essential deservedness is what is not observed with it the specificity of an attribute, until all [are excluded], not what the bare Essence is deserving of. For the deservedness of hamd is only for beauty, and it was called "essential" for observing the Essence in it without considering the specificity of an attribute, or for the indication of the name of the Essence upon it, or because when it was not relying upon an attribute of the specific attributes, it was relying upon the Essence. Some of our masters—may Allah, the Almighty, sanctify their secrets—divided hamd by consideration of its issuance into two parts: its source by consideration of the difference is from two places and its origin from two eyes. If it is found from the Truth and issues from the Absolute Existence, sometimes it is for the Essence in its uniqueness, unity, and its absence in the blindness of its identity, sometimes by the perfection of its absoluteness in its existence, sometimes by its descent into the folds of its witnesses, sometimes by the perfection of its attributes and qualities, sometimes by the perfection of its effects and acts, sometimes He is praised for its attributes from the perspective of the whole, and sometimes from the perspective of detail. So He is praised for knowledge from the perspective of its encompassing of every known, of truth and creation, unseen and witnessed, dominion and kingdom, barrier and power, and its independence in existence without duration, matter, teacher, or benefactor, and its sanctification from deficiency and its purity from what crosses in the imagination. Likewise, for the rest of the attributes by what befits them and is obligatory for them. If it is found from the creation and the restricted existence, sometimes it is for the Essence of the Truth, sometimes for His attributes, sometimes for His names, sometimes for His acts, sometimes for His secrets, and sometimes for His subtle craftsmanship and hidden wisdom in His acts and effects. This is according to the amount of people in knowledge and their end in intellect and understanding. “And they have not estimated Allah with His true estimation,” and they do not encompass Him in knowledge, and “Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of Might, above what they describe.” If the whole is considered, it is all from Him and to Him. “And to your Lord is the ultimate end.” So there is no praiser and no praised besides Him, "I saw Sa’di, al-Rabab, and Zaynab, and you are the one intended, and you are the hoped-for." There, every problem is lifted and every speech is cut. He brought al-hamd before the Noble Name because the station requires more concern for it, as it is in the process of the issuance of its signified; thus, it is the focus of the eye, even if the mention of Allah, the Almighty, is more important in itself, and importance requires precedence. However, the requirement of the accident according to the station is stronger in the speaker. Delaying what was brought here in the likes of His saying—the Almighty: “And to Him is the praise in the heavens”—is for another purpose that will come to you with other matters in its place, God willing.

"Lord" (al-Rabb) in the origin is a verbal noun meaning "nurturing," which is bringing the thing to its perfection according to its eternal predisposition, little by little. It is as if it is from "the little one grew," when he was raised, so he transitioned by the doubling, and he was described by it for the true and imagery exaggeration. The metaphor in it is either intellectual, from the types of "it is only turning away and approach," or linguistic, like "ask the village." It was said: it is a resemblance attribute (sifah mushabbahah), and in Sharh al-Tashil it is forbidden. The apparent is that it is from the exaggeration of the active participle (ism fa’il), or it is an active participle and its origin is rab (nurturer), so its alif was dropped as they said "a man is bar and bir," said by Abu Hayyan. It is supported by its attachment to the object. They mentioned that the resemblance attribute is attached to the subject. It is also applied to the Creator, the Master, the King, the Benefactor, the Reformer, the Worshipped, and the Companion, although the famous is its being in the meaning of nurturing. For this reason, some researchers said: "It is a reality in it because the obviousness is its sign, and in the others, it is either metaphor or homonym." The first is more probable because all of them contain the meaning of nurturing, and the presence of the relation is the sign of metaphor, and because if the word rotates between metaphor and homonym, it is carried to metaphor, as was established in the beginnings of language. Al-Zamakhshari carried it here to the meaning of "Owner" (al-Malik). Perhaps what we chose is better than it, for after accepting that it is a reality in that, it leads to "Owner of the Day of Judgment" being a repetition for its entering into "Lord of the worlds." If we said "specificity after generalization," it needs the explanation of the subtlety of placing "The Compassionate, the Merciful" between them, and it does not appear to this servant. On that, our choice is more appropriate to the station, for nurturing is the greatest favor relative to the benefited, and more indicative of the perfection of His act—the Almighty—His power, and His wisdom. The effects and what is in them of secrets indicate that to you. Some found pleasant what al-Tibi chose from the obligation of carrying "Lord" upon both its concepts, and the shared portion is necessary. The way of acting of the homonym in both its concepts, if they agree in a matter, is the way of metonymy, in that it does not contradict the desire for explicit meaning alongside the desire for what it expressed; and if they differ, the way of reality and metaphor. In any case, it is not applied linguistically to other than Him—the Almighty—an application that is widespread, except restricted by attachment and its like, which indicates a specific lordship. The saying of Ibn Hulayzah in al-Mundhir bin Ma’ al-Sama’: "And he is the Lord and the witness on the day of the two choices, and the trial is a rare trial." Imam al-Suyuti deemed it probable that the intent is the negation of its application to other than Him—the Almighty—legally, and the poetry is pre-Islamic. In the speech of al-Jawhari is what supports it. Al-Shihab said: "If it were in the meaning of other than the Owner, it would be allowed with the evidence to apply it to other than Him—the Almighty." Some permitted its application as indefinite, as in the saying of al-Nabighah: "We urge to al-Nu’man until we reach him, may I be a ransom for you from a lord of my new and old." Some disliked its application restricted by attachment to a rational being, like "lord of the servant," for the illusion of homonymy. The two sheikhs narrated from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him: "Let no one of you say 'feed your lord,' 'perform ablution for your lord,' and let no one say 'my lord,' but let him say 'my master' and 'my owner'." They answered about the saying of Joseph, peace be upon him: “Return to your lord” and “Indeed, he is my lord,” and its like, that it is like “And they fell to him prostrating,” its permission restricted to his time.

"The worlds" (al-‘alamin) in the famous view is the plural of ‘alam (world). It was objected that it encompasses the rational and others, while ‘alamun is specific to the rational. It was answered by its being a plural for it after its specialization to them, and it is in the ruling of attributes, as will be known by His success—the Almighty—from its definition. Or we say by way of dominance. It was said it is a plural noun on the weight of soundness, and it has no equal. It has a view, because the noun indicating more than two, if it was set for the units gathered, indicating them with an indication of repetition of the unit by conjunction, it is the plural. If it was set for the reality, the consideration of individuality is cancelled in it, it is the collective noun, like tamr and tamrah. If it was set for the totality of the units, it is a plural noun, whether it has a unit like rakb or not like raht. So look which definitions are true for it. In al-Kashf: if ‘alam and ‘alamun were said like ‘arafah and ‘arafat, it would not be remote. It is in it that it is more remote, because it is an analogy in what is known by hearing, on the fact that for ‘alamin there are units, each of them called ‘alam, so there is no doubt in its being a plural for it, contrary to ‘arafat, for it is not the units of each of them ‘arafah. The world, like the seal, is a name for what one knows by it, and it dominated in what the Creator—the Almighty—is known by, and it is everything besides Him from substances and accidents. It is applied to the totality of the genera, and it is the prevalent, as it is applied to one of them and more. So it is as if it is a name for the shared portion; otherwise, homonymy or reality and metaphor is necessitated, and the origin is their negation. It is not applied to an individual of them; so it is not said "Zayd is a world," as it is said "man is a world." Perhaps it is only by consideration of dominance and convention. As for by consideration of the origin, there is no doubt in the validity of the application definitely for the realization of the instance inevitably. For just as one is guided to Allah—the Almighty—by the totality of what is besides Him and by every genus of His genera, one is guided to Him—the Almighty—by every part of the parts of that totality and by every individual of the individuals of those genera, for the realization of the need for the Effecter, the Necessary in His Essence, in the whole. For everything that appeared in the manifestations, whether it was mighty or lowly, and was present in these assemblies, whatever it was, for its possibility and its need, it is an obvious evidence for the Creator, the Glorious, and an obvious way to the world of monotheism. How amazing is it how the god is disobeyed, or how the denier denies Him, and in everything for Him is a sign that indicates that He is One. He only brought "The Lord of the worlds" because if He had singled out and defined by the "al" of istighraq, it would not be a text in it due to the possibility of the covenant, that it would be a pointing to this perceived world. For the world, even if it was set for the shared portion, it became common in usage in the meaning of the totality, like existence in external existence. It dominated the usage in convention in this meaning in the perceived world for the soul’s familiarity with the perceived. So He pluralized to benefit universality definitely, for it is then not used in the totality until this perceived world is obvious from it. So it is used in every genus, for there is no third. Thus, the meaning is: the Lord of every genus named "world." Nurturing for the genera only attaches by consideration of their individuals; thus, it benefits the universality of all the created individuals of the genera, looking to the ruling. The report that the istighraq of the singular is more comprehensive is a matter he finished with, and there is no harm to us from it, as is not hidden to the contemplative. Some specialized ‘alamin to those with knowledge from the angels and the two weighty ones, and "Lord" of the most noble of existents is "Lord" of others. Imam al-Suyuti said: "According to it, it is derived from knowledge, and according to the saying of universality, from the landmark." In it is that the whole is in everything possible, and specialization is a claim without evidence. It was said: they are the jinn and the humans for His saying—the Almighty: “To be to the worlds a warner.” It was said: they are the humans for His saying—the Almighty: “Do you come to the males from the worlds?” It is what was reported from Ja’far al-Sadiq and taken from the sea of the People of the House. The Lord of the House is more knowing. Perhaps the way in it is the indication that the human is the intended one in essence from the charge of the lawful and the unlawful and the sending of the messengers, peace be upon them, and because he is the summary of all existents and the copy of all beings, transferred from the Lordly Tablet by the Merciful Pen. From this door is what was attributed to the gate of the city of knowledge—may Allah—the Almighty—ennoble his countenance: "Your medicine is in you, and you do not see, and your disease is from you, and you do not feel. And you claim that you are a small body, and in you is folded the greater world." Whoever contemplates in his essence and thinks in his attributes, the greatness of his Creator and the signs of his Initiator appear to him. “And in the earth are signs for the certain, and in yourselves; so do you not see?” Indeed, whoever knows his essence has known his Lord. What is appropriate for the station here is universality, and the worlds are many that numbers do not enumerate. “And if all that is in the earth of trees were pens...” It was reported in some of the reports that Allah, the Almighty, created a hundred thousand lamps and hung them on the Throne, and the heavens and the earth and what is in them, even Paradise and Hell, are in one lamp, and no one knows what is in the rest of the lamps except Allah, the Almighty. Ka’b al-Ahbar said: "No one enumerates the number of the worlds except Allah, the Almighty." “And He creates what you do not know,” “And no one knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him.” There is no atom of the atoms of the worlds but it is in the enclosure of His nurturing—the Almighty—indeed, there is no thing of what the range of possibility and existence encompassed, from the high and the low, the abstract and the material, the spiritual and the physical, but it is in its essence such that if the disconnection of the effects of nurturing were assumed from it for one instant, it would not have a rest and the abode would not be tranquil in it, except in the pit of nothingness and the abysses of ruin. But from the Holiest Presence—the Almighty, His status and sanctification—He overflows upon it in every time that passes and every instant that passes and terminates from the types of emanations related to its essence, existence, attributes, and perfections, what the sphere of expression does not encompass and no one knows except the Subtle, the Expert. Necessarily, as no thing of the possibilities deserves existence by its essence initially, it does not deserve it by remaining, and that is only from the presence of the First Source—the Almighty, the Exalted. So, as its existence is not imagined initially as long as all manners of its original nothingness are not closed against it, its remaining on existence is not imagined after its realization by its cause as long as all manners of its accidental nothingness are not closed against it, because perpetuity is from the characteristics of the necessary existence. It is apparent that what its existence depends upon from the existential matters, which are its causes and conditions, even if they were finite for the necessity of the finiteness of what entered under existence, but the nothingness matters that have an entry in its existence, which are expressed by the removal of the impediments, are not so. For there is no impossibility in that one thing has infinite impediments, its existence or its remaining depending upon their removal, i.e., their remaining on nothingness alongside the possibility of their existence in themselves. So the remaining of those impediments that do not terminate on nothingness is a nurturing for that thing from infinite faces. In short, the effects of His nurturing—the Almighty—are obvious in landmark, shining in light. So exalted is He from a Lord who is not compared, and a Benefactor whose generosity is not enumerated and does not terminate. We are swimming in the current of the sea of His generosity, and for the establishment of the ceremonies of His gratitude, we are incapable. How beautiful is the saying of some of the knowers: "He—the Almighty—owns servants besides you, and you have no lord besides Him. Then you take it easy in His service and the establishment of the functions of His obedience, as if you have a lord, indeed lords besides Him, and He—the Almighty—cares for your nurturing until it is as if He has no servant besides you. So exalted is He, how complete is His nurturing and how great is His mercy!" It was only the plural with the waw and the nun, even though it is in the famous view a plural of few, and the apparent is calling for the plural of many, to alert that the worlds, even if they are many, are few, indeed less than few alongside the greatness of Allah, the Almighty, and His grandeur. “And they have not estimated Allah with His true estimation, and the earth will be in His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand.” On the fact that the plural of few often the station connects it to the plural of many, on the fact that some of the researchers on the truth from the masters of Arabic went to that the masculine plural is valid for few and many. So choose for yourself what is sweet. He—the Almighty—pointed with His saying "Lord of the worlds" to the presence of Lordship, which is the station of the knowers, and it is a name for the rank that necessitates the names that seek the existents. Thus, under it entered the Knowing, the Hearing, the Seeing, the Self-Sustaining, the Willing, and what resembles that, for every one of these names and attributes seeks what it falls upon. The Knowing necessitates a known, the Powerful a power-able, the Willing a willed, to other than that. The names that are under the name of the Lord are the names shared between the Truth and the creation, and the names specific to the creation in an effective specificity. From the first part is the Knowing, for instance, for it has two faces: a face specific to the divine presence, and from it, it is said "He knows Himself," and a face that looks to the creations, and from it, it is said "He knows others." From the second part is the Creator and its like from the active names. It has one face, and from it, it is said "Creator of the existents," and it is not said "Creator of Himself"—exalted is He from that. This part of the names is under His name the King, and from it appears the difference between Him and the Lord. As for the difference between the Lord and the Compassionate, it is that the Compassionate according to them is a name for a rank specialized with all the divine high attributes, whether the Essence is alone in it, like the Great and the One, or homonymy happened, or specificity to the creation like the two previous parts. So it is more inclusive than the Lord, and from the rank of Lordship, the Compassionate looks to the existents. As for His name—the Almighty—Allah, it is a name for an essential rank that is inclusive, and a sphere encompassing the truths, and it is pointing to the divinity, which is the highest of ranks. It is what gives every possessor of a right his right, and under it is the Oneness (ahadiyyah), and under it the Unity (wahidiyyah), and under it the Compassion, and under it the Lordship, and under it the King-ship. For this reason, His name "Allah" was the highest of the names, and higher than His name "The One." For Oneness is the most specific of the manifestations of the Essence itself, and Divinity is the best of the manifestations of the Essence for itself or for another. From there, the people of Allah—the Almighty—forbade the manifestation of Oneness and did not forbid the manifestation of Divinity, because Oneness is pure Essence; there is no appearance of an attribute in it, let alone a created thing appearing in it. So it is nothing but for the Ancient, established in His Essence. From what we established is known the secret of the abundance of the servant’s opening of his supplication with "O Lord, O Lord," even though He—the Almighty—did not specify this Noble Name in the supplication and negate what is besides it, but He—the Almighty—said: “Say: Call upon Allah or call upon the Compassionate,” and said: “And to Allah belong the beautiful names, so call Him by them.” The people of the obvious said: "The supplicant does not seek but what he thinks is goodness for his state and nurturing for his essence, so it was appropriate to call Him by this name." And calling the Nurturer in the witnessed by the attribute of nurturing is closer to the flowing of the breast of response and stronger for moving the vein of mercy. According to our Sufi masters—may Allah, the Almighty, sanctify their secrets—the speech differs by the difference of the station in separation and gathering. According to me, and it is a spark from their lights, the spirits, the first thing their ears heard and their sleeves perfumed with was the hearing of the description of Lordship, as His saying—the Almighty—feels: “And when your Lord took from the children of Adam from their loins their offspring and made them witness upon themselves: 'Am I not your Lord?' They said: 'Yes.'” They call Him—the Almighty—by the first name by which He established them, so they confessed, and the covenant was taken upon them by it, so they stood firm and were established. So He is their first beloved and their refuge when the matter becomes problematic and difficult. "I left the passion of Sa’di and Layla isolated, and I returned to the companion of the first home. The passions called to me: 'Slowly, for these are the stations of whom you love; so gently, and dismount.'" Close to this is what the Greatest Sheikh—may his secret be most illuminated—mentioned, whose outcome is that when Allah, the Almighty, created the word expressed by the Universal Spirit—a creation of initiation—and blinded it from seeing itself, it remained not knowing from where it issued nor how it issued. So it moved its zeal to seek what is with it, and it does not know that it is with it. "Sometimes a person travels to his requirement, and the cause of the requirement is in the traveler." “And We are closer to him than the jugular vein.” So it began the journey with its zeal, so the Truth manifested its Essence to it, so it knew what Allah—the Almighty—deposited in it of secrets and wisdom, and its origination was realized according to it, and it knew its essence with an encompassing knowledge. So that knowledge was a specific food that it is nourished by, and its life continues. So He said to it at that Most Holy Manifestation: "What is the name with you?" It said: "You are my Lord." It did not know Him but in the presence of Lordship, and the Ancient was singled out by Divinity, for no one knows Him but He. So He—the Almighty—said to it: "You are my nurtured one, and I gave you My names and My attributes, and knowledge does not obtain for you but from the perspective of existence. If you encompassed Me with knowledge, you would be Me, and you would be encompassed for you." And He supplied it with the divine secrets and I nurture you with them, so you find them made in you, so you know them. And I veiled you from knowing the manner of My supplying you with them, for you have no power to carry their witnessing, for if you knew them, the aniyyah (I-ness) would not originate. Where is the compound from the simple, and there is no way to flip the realities, to the end of what he said. It is known from it the indication of the secret of the opening of the attributes in the Fatihah with "Lord of the worlds." In it also is a suitability for the state of the mission and his sending—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to whom he was sent, because that is the greatest nurturing for the servants, and a hidden symbol for the seeking of compassion and mercy for the creation, whatever they were, for Allah, the Almighty, is their Lord, all of them. "I was gentle to your people in your passion, while they are enemies, and for the sake of an eye, a thousand eyes are honored." It was read "Lord of the worlds" in the accusative, and it was attributed to Zayd bin ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with both. There was a disagreement in directing it: it was said it is accusative by way of excision, and the agent here is estimated as "I praise" for the station, or "I mention," not "I mean," because that is if the described is not specified, as in Sharh al-‘Umdah. It was weakened by following after the excision in the attribute. It was answered that the Compassionate is a substitute, not an attribute. It was reported that it was read with the accusative of "The Compassionate, the Merciful," so there is no weakness then. It was said by an estimated verb that al-hamd indicated, and it is not by way of delusion as Abu Hayyan deluded, so he weakened it by his claim that it is from the specialties of the conjunction. It was said by the hamd mentioned. It was objected that in it is the acting of the verbal noun defined by the alif and lam, and that it necessitates the separation between the agent and the object by the foreign predicate. It was answered about the first that Sibawayh—and he is he—permitted the acting of the defined absolutely, and the prepositional phrase is enough for its scent of the verb. Yes, the Kufans forbade it absolutely, and al-Farisi and some of the Basrans permitted it upon ugliness. Some separated between what the pronoun alternated in it, so it is permitted, and what not, so no. About the second: this predicate was an object for this subject in the place of the direct object, as you say "praise to Him," so it is not foreign. It was carried on that the subject and the predicate, for their unification in meaning, are like one thing, so there is no foreign.

(It was narrated) from some of the grammarians the permission of acting absolutely. It was said by the calling (nida’). It is not hidden what is in it of confusion, separation, and iltifat (shift), which hardly—for its freeness from what comes, God willing—is turned to. It was said "Lord" is a past verb, and in it is that its command is present in the distance because of what preceded, and that the sentence is not an attribute, and the state is not good as a state, while it was read by the accusative of what is after, and the appropriate is suitability. The easiest of matters according to me is the first of them; rather, the apparent almost asserts by excision.