And when We bestow favor [with health, abundance, and the like] upon man—meaning his species, for the validity of the judgment is satisfied by its existence in some individuals, and the existence of its opposite in others is not detrimental. It is said that the intended meaning is al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah—he turns away [from Our remembrance], as if he were independent of Us, let alone fulfilling the requirements of gratitude to Us. And he draws aside with his side [he twists his flank away from our obedience and turns his back to it]. The original meaning of na'y is distance, and it is an emphasis on turning away by depicting its form, which is more comprehensive in conveying the intended meaning. Similar is the permissibility of its conjunction (the letter waw), as it suggests a distinction between the two, which is more eloquent than omitting the conjunction, as explained in its proper place; provided that what the rhetoricians have mentioned—that conjunction is necessary in the omission of a connector for the sake of complete connection—is not universally accepted. The "side" is taken in its literal sense, meaning the abandonment of that. It is also permissible for it to be a metonymy for arrogance, as twisting the flank is one of the actions of the arrogant. It is not far-fetched for the "side" to mean the "self," as one says, "Such and such came from so-and-so's side," meaning from him; it is also a metonymy, just as one refers to the occupant of a place or assembly by the place itself. Ibn Amir, in the narration of Ibn Dhakwan, read wa na'a here and in Surah Fussilat. It is said that this is a case of transposition, placing the 'ayn in the place of the lam, like ra'a (for ra'ah). Others say there is no transposition, and na'a means "rose up," as in the verse: "Until its joints were assembled, and its shoulder rose up (wa na'a) to the northern part," meaning it rose up leaning on its north side. "Rose up" is interpreted here as "hastened," and the speech assumes an implied addition, i.e., "he hastened by turning away his side." It is also said that it means he became sluggish in fulfilling gratitude, acting like one who turns away.

And when evil touches him [of illness, poverty, or any of the various calamities], he is despairing [severely despairing of Our mercy], because he did not treat Us well in times of ease so that he might hope for Our bounty in times of hardship. Attributing the "touching" to evil—after attributing the "bestowal of favor" to His own pronoun—is an indication that good is intended in essence, whereas evil is not, for that is what is required by absolute generosity and expansive mercy. This is pointed to by the Prophet's (peace be upon him) saying: "O Allah, all good is in Your hands, and evil is not attributed to You." Philosophers and those who follow their path have a long discussion on this, which is worth reviewing to extract what is pure and leave what is murky. They said: The First [the Almighty] has perfect power, wisdom, and knowledge; He is complete in all His actions, and it is inconceivable for Him to be stingy in bestowing goods. The only motivation for Him is His knowledge of the facets of good and the interests of others, which is the very essence of His being, just like all His other attributes. As for the deficiencies and evils occurring in a category of possibilities, and their failure to reach the completeness conceivable for them, this is due to the limitation of their receptivity and the imperfection of their preparedness, not due to the stinginess of the Truth (the Almighty)—exalted is He above that.

The limitation of receptivity ends in the hereafter with the requirements of possible essences, the source of which is possibility itself. The verification of this is that "evil" is conventionally applied to two meanings:

First, that which is non-existence, such as poverty and simple ignorance. This is of two types:

1. Pure non-existence, which is not equivalent to the existence that the nature of a thing seeks, nor among the perfections and goods possible for it to obtain—such as the insufficiency of a contingent being compared to Necessary Existence and Essential Necessity, and the insufficiency of some contingent beings compared to others, like the insufficiency of physical bodies compared to souls. The good that corresponds to this is restricted to the Necessary Existent (the Almighty), for He has absolute perfection and true existence without any aspect of possibility in any way. Everything other than Him, among the essences presented for existence, is not free from a tinge of evil and a darkness, differing according to the differences in their levels in terms of distance from the spring of existence and the rising point of the light of good and generosity. The source of this evil is essential possibility.
2. That which is the absence of what a thing seeks or what is possible for it to obtain of perfections. This cannot be conceived in non-material things, for the "originated" (incorporeal) entities have existence in the most perfect way conceivable for them, so they have no evil in this sense. Everything else related to matter is not free from evil, according to the differences in their potential readiness based on their varying ranks in their attachment to prime matter (hyle). The source of this evil is the hyle, and the source of the hyle is possibility. If not for it, it would not have emanated from its source, so evil leads back to possibility, as you have heard.

Second, that which prevents a thing from reaching the good possible for it in terms of existence or the perfection of existence, such as cold and heat which spoil fruits, or rain that prevents the launderer from whitening clothes, or blameworthy character traits that prevent the soul from reaching its intellectual perfection, such as stinginess, extravagance, compound ignorance, foolishness, and blameworthy actions like adultery, theft, slander, and similar pains and griefs, and other existential things—but these are followed by privations.

To them, applying "evil" to the first meaning is literal, and to the second, it is metaphorical. For true evil has no essence; it is either the absence of an essence or the absence of a perfection for an essence. The proof for this is that if it were an existential thing, it would necessarily be either evil in itself or evil for something else. The first is false, otherwise it would not exist, for a thing does not necessitate its own non-existence or the non-existence of its perfection. Moreover, all things seek their perfections, not their non-existence; and even if it did necessitate that, the evil would be that "non-existence," not the thing itself. The second is also false, because its being evil for something else is either because it is the non-existence of that "other" or the non-existence of some of its perfections. For if it did not cause the non-existence of anything at all—neither its existence nor its perfection—it would not be evil for that thing. Necessarily, whatever does not cause the non-existence of something or its perfection is not evil for it. Therefore, evil is nothing but the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of its perfection, not the existential thing that causes the non-existence. Rather, in itself, it is among the psychological or physical perfections—like injustice; for although it is evil relative to the oppressed and relative to the rational soul (whose perfection lies in subduing and breaking its powers), it is "good" relative to the irascible power (whose perfection lies in vengeance). Likewise, burning is a perfection for fire and an evil for that which is harmed by it. Thus, it is known that evil is either the absence of an essence or the absence of a perfection for it. Therefore, existence, in that it is existence, is pure good, and non-existence, in that it is non-existence, is pure evil.

Furthermore, you have learned that the evil which is in the sense of non-existence includes that which is a requirement of essences that have no cause, and that which is not of this kind but rather attaches to essences—not from their own nature—and thus must have a cause. The discussion is not about the former, which has no "why," since it has been established that essences, in their being possible or in their need for a cause for their existence, have no cause, nor is there a cause for the insufficiency of the contingent compared to the Necessary in its essence, nor for the difference in the ranks of this deficiency in essences. Rather, that is due to the difference in the boundaries of the essences themselves, not due to an external factor. How could it be otherwise? If the deficiency were identical in all of them, the essences would be one single essence. Instead, the discussion is about the second: the non-existence of that which is among the things additional to what is required by the species, such as ignorance of philosophy for a human, for example. That is not an evil for him because he is a human, but because it is the loss of something required by an individual who is prepared for it and yearns for it, in terms of the fact that this entitlement and yearning—for which there is no benefit in being universal—is found in him.

This evil only exists in things rarely. Everything that exists is pure good, or its good is greater than its evil. As for that which is pure evil, or where evil predominates, or where both sides are equal, such things have no existence at all, so there is no need for a source for them other than the Necessary Existent (the Almighty), Who is pure good—no evil at all originates from Him, contrary to what the infidel Magians imagined. Furthermore, everything that is pure good, or whose good is greater, originates from the Necessary Existent based on the principle that His nature is to overflow with good, because abandoning the former is pure evil and abandoning the latter is predominantly evil. The world of the elements is of the second category, for its necessity for evils is in a rare manner, and the providence of the Creator and the mercy of the Generous do not permit its omission; otherwise, there would result a great amount of good for a small amount of evil, which is actually a great evil. Moreover, these [evils] exist only for the sake of utility in things that, had they not been created, the vastness of existence would have been narrowed, the cloak of generosity would have been shortened, and many worlds and countless precious treasures would have remained in the realm of non-existence. From this perspective, that small evil is essentially required. Furthermore, it exists only beneath the lunar sphere, in some parts of the earth, which is insignificant—nay, nothing—relative to what is with your Lord, Glory be to Him. It affects some individuals at some times, and it is not an evil relative to the system of the whole. If you imagine a speck of evil in the seas of the rays of the sun of good, it does not harm it; rather, it increases its brilliance, beauty, radiance, and perfection—like a black mole on a beautiful white face, which increases its attractiveness, charm, brightness, and splendor.

It is not hidden that this is valid only according to the view that it is impossible for His will to be equal in relation to a thing and its opposite without a motive and benefit, as is the school of the Ash'aris. Otherwise, it could be said: If the Doer of all is All-Choosing, He has the right to choose whichever He wishes of goods and evils. But the sages and the pillars of Islam said: His choice (the Almighty) is higher than this category, and the affairs of the world are tied to universal laws, and His actions (the Almighty) are linked to clear and hidden wisdoms and benefits.

The Imam's statement—that because the philosophers argued for necessity and compulsion in actions, their delving into this topic is part of superfluity and misdirection, because the question "why" regarding their emanation is not valid, just as the emanation of burning from fire is, because it emanates from it by its very nature—is derived from prejudice. For their verifiers affirm choice, and the emanation of actions from Allah (the Almighty) is not, in their view, like the emanation of burning from fire. After granting the assumption of their discussion on how evil occurs in this world, it is because the Creator—blessed is His Name—is pure, simple Good in their view, and they do not permit the emanation of evil from that which has no aspect of evil in it at all. Thus, at first glance, they would be bound to affirm what the Dualists fabricated of two origins, one of good and one of evil, so they freed themselves from that through that discussion. It is therefore a benefit, not a superfluity. In sum, whatever emanates from Him (the Almighty) is either something completely free from evil, or something which necessitates a small amount of evil, and in its abandonment lies a great evil. And this does not emanate from Him (the Almighty) regarding any person except after the "request" of his essence for it in itself, as indicated by His saying (the Almighty): "He gave everything its creation, then guided it," among other verses. There is a long discussion in al-Isharat and its commentaries related to this place, and perhaps what we have mentioned is sufficient for those of understanding.