An-Nahl: (24) "And when it is said to them..."

"And when it is said to them"—that is, to those who are arrogant. This is an exposition of their misleading, following the exposition of their being misled. It is said: the pronoun refers to the disbelievers of Quraysh who, as narrated from Qatadah, used to sit on the path of anyone going to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to discover the truth of his affair. When one would pass by them, he would say to them: "What has your Lord sent down?" (upon Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him), and they would say: "Legends of the ancients."

That is, what the ancients wrote, as they also said: "He has caused them to be written down, so they are dictated to him." Thus, Asatir (legends) is the plural of Asthar, which is the plural of Satr (line), making it the plural of the plural. Al-Mubarrad said: It is the plural of Usturah (legend), like Urjuhah (swing) and Arajih. Their intent by this is that it contains no reality. It is said: the one who says this to them is some of the Muslims, in order to know what they possess. It is also said: the one who says it is some of them [the disbelievers themselves] by way of sarcasm; otherwise, they do not believe in the revelation of anything. The same is said regarding the answer concerning its designation as "sent down" in the response, based on the estimation of an implied subject (mubtada') there. It is permissible that they designate it by what is mentioned based on the assumption and concession, in order to reject it, similar to His saying: "This is my Lord." It is also said: they estimated it as "sent down" by way of mockery and conformity.

In Al-Kashshaf, it is stated that "Ma-dha" (what) is in the accusative case as the object of "anzala" (has sent down)—i.e., what thing has your Lord sent down?—or it is in the nominative case as an initial (mubtada'), meaning: what is the thing that your Lord has sent down? If you make it accusative, the meaning of "Legends of the ancients" is: what you claim to be sent down is that. If you make it nominative, the meaning is: the sent-down thing is that, similar to His saying: "What do they spend? Say: the excess," regarding those who read it in the nominative. The verification of its intent was hidden from some researchers; the author of Al-Fara'id said: The position is that it should be in the nominative as an initial, evidenced by the nominative case of "Asatir," for the answer to a nominative is nominative, and the answer to an accusative is accusative, and no one has recited it in the accusative here.

The author of At-Taqrib said: There is a critique regarding the statement of Az-Zamakhshari, and he explained it and answered accordingly. At-Tayyibi elaborated on this, but the author of Al-Kashf excelled in this place, saying: His statement that it is in the nominative as an initial, meaning "what is the thing He sent down," is an clarification. Otherwise, the meaning is "what is that which He sent down" based on what is clearly stated in Al-Mufassal, as there is no reason to omit the pronoun without elongation, even though the wording admits both the accusative and nominative with equal probability. On this, the difference between the two estimations appears clearly, for the accusative, even if it points to the establishment of the essence of the action and that the question is about the object, falls short of the implication of the nominative. It is known that the sentence which serves as the relative clause (silah) should be known to the addressee. Where is the agreed-upon, known judgment [in this case] as opposed to others?

If this is established, then it must be known that according to both estimations, the answer does not correspond to it, because regarding [the verse] "They said: good," the answer was corresponded to, unlike [the word] "Asatir." His statement here is like the saying of the Almighty: "What do they spend?" to the end, for those who read it in the nominative, is a comparison regarding the shift to the nominative, but there is no basis for it, for the answer there corresponded to the question, unlike our current case. The estimation of "what you claim to be sent down" in the case of the accusative is only because the questioner did not believe in an actualized revelation, but rather asked for the designation of what he heard had been revealed in general. Thus, in refuting it to the truth, it is sufficient to say: "What you claim to be sent down are legends." As for the estimation of the nominative, since it indicates that the revelation in his view is actualized and agreed upon with no dispute—and the question is only about the designation of what was sent down—the response was given that this thing, which is actualized in his view, is "legends," by way of sarcasm. For it is known that what is sent down cannot be legends. Thus, there is an exaggeration in refuting him to the truth by mocking him, and that he [the responder] established the judgment of reality in a place where it does not belong. So the questioner sees that it was corresponded to, when in reality it was not corresponded to, but rather there was an exaggeration in the refutation.

It is likely that the first is the answer to the question between them or among the travelers, and the second is the answer to the question of the Muslims, based on the two mentioned possibilities, not the reverse as was thought. This is the most likely [interpretation] in determining his statement, consistent with what he mentioned later as it passed. He made what he mentioned there a third perspective, and that the answer was corresponded to here. The direction of the difference between the two estimations, by claim and by descent, is what we have laid down, and if the majority went to it, the effort [to explain it] is unnecessary. And "Asatir" has been recited in the accusative, as stated by Abu Hayyan and others, so the denial of the author of Al-Fara'id is due to a lack of knowledge.