Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:17

(Their likeness is as the likeness of him who kindled a fire): This is a sentence confirming the narrative of the hypocrites recounted up to this point; therefore, it is not conjoined to what precedes it. Since that narrative involved metaphors and figurative language in the manner of descriptions that reveal the reality of the hypocrites and explain their states, He followed it by illustrating that reality and presenting it in the form of a witness through a similitude, thereby completing the exposition. For the use of similitudes possesses a status that is not hidden and a light that is not extinguished; it raises the veils from the faces of truths, clears the rust from the visage of intricacies, brings the imagined into the realm of certainty, and makes the absent as though it were present. Often, the meanings intended to be understood are purely intellectual, and thus the imagination contests with the intellect in grasping them, screening them from being joined to what is in the intellect. By striking similitudes, they are brought into the realm of the sensible, so the imagination assists the intellect in grasping them; there, the darkness of illusions clears and the clamor of dispute is lifted: (And these similitudes We set forth for mankind that they may reflect).

It is said: It is most appropriate to make this a clarification of His saying: (Those are they who purchased, etc.), and there is no distance in that. Interpreting it as an inception (istinaf) is remote, especially since similitudes are struck for clarification and exposition.

The word mathal (similitude)—with the fatha on the mim and tha—is in essence mithil (analogue), meaning the equivalent and the like. I do not approve of making a distinction between them. It seems to be derived from mutul, which is standing erect; from this is the Hadith: "Whoever wishes that people should stand before him, let him take his seat in the Fire." Then, it was applied to eloquent, common, and excellent speech, which contains either a likeness without an analogue, an elegant representative metaphor, a beneficial wisdom or exhortation, an ingenious metonymy, or a concise arrangement of comprehensive words. It is not a condition for it to be a compound metaphor—contrary to those who are mistaken—nor is it a condition that it be figurative. The proverbs of the Arabs have been singled out in writings, and books have abounded on them; many of them are used in their literal meaning. Because it is unique in its category and intended for citation, they did not allow changing it, lest the purpose be lost. Defining it as "a common saying whose application is compared to its origin" is refuted by the similitudes of the Quran, because Allah the Exalted initiated them, and they have no prior origin—unless it is said that this is a new terminology, or that this is the majority case for such similitudes. Then, it was borrowed for every state, story, or attribute that has significance and possesses strangeness. Among this is: (And for Allah is the highest similitude) and (The likeness of Paradise which the righteous have been promised), and this is what is intended here by mathal (likeness), not the representation (tamthil) indicated by the kaf. The meaning is: Their state, which is strange in its significance, is like the state of him who kindled a fire, etc., in what will be revealed regarding it, if Allah wills.

The kaf is a particle of similitude attached to a deleted predicate of the subject (mubtada). Ibn Atiyyah claimed that it is a noun, like its usage in the saying of Al-A'sha: "Will they cease, and will not cease those of deviation, like the piercing in which the oil and the slaughter vanish?" This is the position of Ibn al-Hasan, but it is not "good" except in necessity. Asserting its redundancy, as in His saying: (Like eaten straw), is an increase in ignorance.

The relative pronoun alladhi (him who) is placed in the stead of alladhina (those who) if the pronoun in (by their light) refers back to it; otherwise, it remains in its literal sense, for there is no harm in comparing the state of a group to the state of one. It is permissible here to place the singular in the place of the plural, although the majority forbade it, refusing to set the "one standing" in the place of "those standing," because this is different from other cases due to a specificity that necessitates it. It was placed only to lead to the description of definite nouns by means of relative clauses. When it was not intended for its own sake, they expanded its use. Because it, along with its relative clause, is like a single thing, and the sign of the plural does not fall as a filler (hashw), they did not attach it to it. They placed it for what is general, like man and ma, and alladhina is not its plural; rather, it is a noun added to it for an increase in meaning, intending to make it explicit. For this reason, it is not defined by letters like others, according to the most eloquent usage. Because it is elongated by the relative clause, it deserved lightening, to the extent that it was exaggerated until it was restricted to the lam in cases like the active participle (ism al-fa'il)—this was stated by the Judge (al-Qadi) and others. This is not free from murkiness, especially the last point. The narration from some grammarians regarding the permissibility of omitting the nun of alladhina is not approved by the verifiers. If one descends [to accept it], it is required that the plural pronoun return to it, as in His saying: (And you waded like the one who waded) in one interpretation, and the saying of the poet: "O Lord of Isa, do not bless anyone among those who stand nor among those who sat, except the one who stood by the fringes of the rope." Omitting the pronoun (in the singular) is not heard from one who is trusted, and it is perhaps because what is omitted is like what is spoken. The way to address this is to say that it looks toward the meaning of general genus in alladhi, as there is no doubt that it does not refer to a specific kindler nor to all individual kindlers. The relative noun, like that defined by the lam, is subject to what the latter is subject to. A noun of genus, even if its wording is singular, may be treated as a plural: (Above them are garments of green silk), and their saying: "The yellow dinar and the white dirham." Or it may be said: It is understood that there is a noun that is singular in wording and plural in meaning, like fawj (group) and fariq (party), so the structure is sound. The pronoun in istawqada (kindled) observes the wording of the relative noun, and the pronoun in (by their light) observes its meaning. Istawqada is in the sense of awqada (kindled); Abu Zayd has narrated awqada and istawqada with the same meaning, like ajaba (answered) and istajaba. Al-Akhfash saying that istiyqad means "seeking fuel"—which is the spreading of the fire—as Al-Baydawi did, necessitates a deletion. The meaning would then be: They sought a fire and summoned it, then kindled it.

(Then when it illuminated): Because illumination is not caused by seeking; it is only caused by the kindling. Fire is a subtle, luminous, and burning essence. Its derivation from nara, yanuru, nuran (to flee) is because there is in it, as is witnessed, a movement and agitation seeking a center. Its being a mistake of sense—as though it is a mistake of sense—yes, it was objected against the definition that illumination is not considered in its reality, and it does not encompass what is established in the philosophical books that the original fire, where the ether is, is transparent and has no color. The same is said regarding burning. The answer is that the specification of names for the essences of things is according to how they are perceived or for the mental concepts taken from them. As for considering their concomitants and essential qualities, that is the task of one who wishes to stand upon their realities, and that is outside the capacity of most people. People perceive from the fire that they have illumination and burning, and they make them its most specific attributes. The definition is for the conventional, and the lack of burning for an impediment does not harm. Moreover, the fact that the fire below the sphere is guiding and not burning—even if some people claim it, the Sheikh (Ibn Sina) invalidated it, and the burning of shooting stars (shuhub) is upon those who deny burning. Stranger than this is the denial of the fire that is near the ether; close to this is the claim that it is nothing but very hot air.

Ibn al-Sumayqa' read kamathali alladhina (like the likeness of those) in the plural, and it is a very problematic reading. The utmost of what we have seen in guiding it is that the singularization of the pronoun is according to what is customary in the language of the Arabs of "presumption" (tawahhum)—as if he spoke of man (who) or alladhi (which) according to wording and meaning, just as he was certain about alladhi based on the presumption of the conditional man in the saying: "Likewise the one who transgresses against the people oppressively, it shall strike him, despite the consequences of what he did." Or that he was content with the singular instead of the plural, just as one is content with a singular noun instead of it; it is like his saying: "And among us in the desert is a family who protects it, quick to the caller, with mighty chests (karakiru), i.e., their chests (karakiruhum)." Or that the agent in istawqada refers back to the agent-noun understood from the verb, as in His saying: (Then it appeared to them after they had seen the signs), in one interpretation, and the referent is then deleted, contrary to the rule—i.e., lahum (to them)—or there is no referent in the first sentence, being content with the pronoun from the second which is conjoined with fa. There is doubt in every thing.

(Then when it illuminated all around it): Lamma (when) is a particle of existence upon existence, or necessity upon necessity, as Sibawayh stated, or it is a temporal adverb meaning "at the time when" or "when." Illumination is making a thing illuminated and radiant, or the radiance and excess of light. Ada'a (illuminated) can be transitive or intransitive. According to the first, ma (what) is a relative noun or described, and the adverb is the relative clause or adjective; it is the object, and the agent is the pronoun of the fire. According to the second, ma is likewise, and it is the agent. You might make its verb a (feminine) for interpretation as a feminine noun, like amkina (places) and jihat (directions), or the agent is the pronoun of the fire and ma is redundant, or it is in the place of an accusative as an adverb. One should not make fi (in) explicit then, as was imagined; for the truth is that when the relative ma or the described ma is made an adverb, what is meant by it are the places surrounding the kindler, which are the six directions. It is from the class of what is placed in the accusative of place as a constant rule, and thus what is expressed by it is the same. The most preferred of the views is that ada'at is transitive and ma is a relative noun, for there is no need then to resort to interpretation or commit to what is rarely used, especially the redundancy of ma here, to the extent that they mentioned it was not heard here and it was not preserved from the speech of the Arabs: "You sat in a good sitting place" (jalastuma majlisan hasanan), nor "Did you stand on Friday?" I wonder where Zamakhshari took that from, and how Baydawi followed him in it.

He made the agent the pronoun of the fire, and the verb intransitive, making the attribution to the cause because the fire did not exist around the kindler, but its light did. So, the radiance of its light around him was treated as the radiance of the fire itself, as was said. This is based on the idea that if an adverb is attached to an intransitive verb that has a transitive effect, it is a condition for the realization of the adverbial relationship that the effect and the influencer exist. Therefore, in "the radiance of such-and-such in such-and-such," it is necessary that there be an illumination and a place illuminated. This is like when the adverb is attached to an intransitive verb, as in "Zayd stood in the house"—for Zayd and the standing are in it, essentially and consequentially. To this, Zamakhshari leaned. Among the people are those who were content with the existence of the effect in it even if the influencer did not exist in it by its essence, as in transitive verbs; so, "The sun illuminated the earth" is a reality according to this, and figurative according to the first. Hawla (around) is an adverb of place, persistent in its adverbial status and annexation. It is dualized and pluralized, so it is said: hawlayhi and ahwaluhu. Hawal is like it, so it is dualized as hawalay. We have not come across its plural in the linguistic books around us. Do not say hawalayhi with a kasra on the lam, as in the Sahah. Perhaps the dual and plural, along with what is understood from some books that hawl and hawal mean "the sides"—which are encompassing—are not literal. It is said: It is with regard to dividing the circle, as was indicated by Mawla Asim Effendi in the translation of the Qamus into Roman. There is reflection in that. The origin of this structure is placed for circling and encompassing, like hawl (year), for it rotates from a season or day to its like. When migration and change became necessary for it, it was used in it with regard to that, like istihala (transmutation) and hawala (transfer), even if it is hidden in terms like hawl (meaning power). It is said: Its origin is the changing of a thing and its separation.

(And He took away their light): This is the answer to lamma (when). The causality is claim-based, for when the taking away of light followed the illumination without delay, it was made as if it were a cause for it; on the basis that for a condition, mere stopping is enough, like "If I had money, I would have performed Hajj." The taking away is dependent upon the illumination. The pronoun in (their light) refers to the "him who" or to its described noun, and it is pluralized for what preceded. He chose nur (light) over nar (fire) because it is the greatest of its benefits, and it is what is suitable for the context, preceding and following. It is said: The sentence is an inception, an answer to "What is their state?", being compared to that, or a substitute for the similitude sentence for clarification, and the pronoun refers to the hypocrites. The answer to lamma is deleted, i.e., "their fire went out, so they remained bewildered." Similar is (Then when they went with it), and its deletion is for conciseness and safety from ambiguity. That which is in it is not hidden from one who has the slightest fairness, even if the vast majority approved of it. The Speech of Allah, the Gentle, the All-Knowing, is exalted above such puzzles.

Attributing the act to Him, the Exalted, is a reality; for He, glory be to Him, is the Absolute Doer in whose hand is the disposal of all matters, through a medium or without one, and the Wise is not objected to regarding anything. Interpreting the fire as a fire that Allah, the Exalted, does not approve of kindling—either metaphorically, like the fire of tribulation and enmity toward Islam, or literally, which the deviants kindled for corruption or causing corruption—is then appropriate for the Wise to extinguish. If the metaphor is not committed to, nothing calls to it except seclusion (i'tizal). The kindling of the fire of deviation and leading astray... He made it transitive with bi (by) rather than the hamza (causative) because in the proverbial saying, "He took away with the thing" (dhahaba bi-al-shay') it is understood that he accompanied it and withheld it from returning to the first state, and it is not so with adhhabahu (he removed it). So, although the ba and the hamza share in the meaning of transitivity, it is not far-fetched that the master of meanings looks toward the original meanings of the hamza and the ba—namely, removal, accompaniment, and attachment. In the verse, there is a subtlety that is not denied. How can it be otherwise when the agent is Allah the Exalted, the Strong, the Mighty, who has no repeller for what He takes and no sender for what He holds? Abu al-Abbas mentioned that "You took Zayd away" (dhahabta bi-Zayd) requires the speaker to go with Zayd, unlike "You removed him" (adhhabta-hu). Perhaps he would say: What is in the verse is a metaphor for the severity of the taking, such that it is not returned. Or it is permissible that Allah the Exalted described Himself with the "going" in a sense that befits Him, as He described Himself, glory be to Him, with the "coming" in the literalness of His saying, the Exalted: (And your Lord comes). The view to which Sibawayh went is that the ba is in the sense of the hamza, so both are merely for transitivity according to him, without difference; therefore, he does not combine them.

Nur (light) is the source of diya' (radiance) and its origin, as the usage of the Arabs indicates, for they annexed diya' to it, as Waraqa ibn Nawfal said: "And there appears in the lands the radiance of light." And Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "And you, when you appeared, the earth shone, and the horizon was radiant with your light." For this reason, nur was applied to Him, the Exalted, without diya'. He, the Exalted, indicated the negation of diya', which is what the literal sense requires, by the negation of nur and taking it away, because it is its origin, and with the negation of the origin, the branch is negated. This which we have mentioned is what the verifiers from the people of language have approved. From it, one knows the aspect of describing the Muhammadan Sharia as nur in His saying: (There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book), and the Mosaic Sharia as diya' in His saying: (And We gave Musa and Harun the Criterion, a radiance, and a reminder for the righteous). In that is an indication of the station of our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, which is the "Gathering-Separator," and his advantage over his brother Musa, peace be upon him, who did not come except with the "Separator." How vast is the difference between the Beloved and the Interlocutor! Every sign that the noble Messengers brought only connected to them from his light. Likewise is the aspect of describing the prayer that forbids indecency and evil in the Hadith of Muslim as nur, and patience as diya'. One knows from this that it is stronger than diya'.

This is how it was said, and it was objected to by saying that the description of what was given to our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as diya' has come, just as the description of what was given to Musa, peace be upon him, as nur has come. To this points the speech of the Great Sheikh (Ibn Arabi), may his secret be sanctified, in the Futuhat. Reflect on this. Some people went to the view that diya' is stronger than nur because of His saying: (He made the sun a radiance and the moon a light). According to this, the expression "He took away their nur" rather than "He took away their diya'" is a repulsion of the possibility of taking away what is in diya' of excess, while the thing called nur remains, even though the purpose is the removal of the nur entirely. Some of them mentioned that both diya' and nur are applied to what the other is applied to, so they are like synonyms. The difference only originated from usage or terminology, not from the origin of the institution and language. From here, the philosophers said: Diya' is what belongs to a thing from its essence, and nur is what is from other than it. Diya' was used for what contains heat in reality, like that which is in the sun, or metaphorically, like that which was mentioned regarding what was given to Musa, peace be upon him, in which there is intensity and extra burden. From this is "Patience is a diya'"—it is known that it is like its name. Nur is for what is not like that, like that which is in the moon and in what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought of the easy, tolerant, white Sharia. From this is "Prayer is a nur," and there is no doubt that it is the coolness of the eye and the rest of the heart. To this points, "My coolness has been placed in prayer," and "Give us rest with it, O Bilal." Nur was used for what occurs in darkness, as it came: "People were in darkness, then Allah spread over them from His light." And the poet's saying: "We spent the night, and the age of the night was in its intensity, and it had, from the light of the full moon, an ash-colored branch." Diya' is not like that, and other things that are not hidden to the seeker.

What the heart leans toward is that diya' is applied to strong light and to the ray of light that is spread out. So, by the first meaning, it is stronger, and by the second, it is lesser. For every context there is a statement, and for every rank an expression. There is no restriction on the eloquent person in choosing one of the two matters in some contexts for a subtlety he considered and a suitability he observed. The verse of the sun does not indicate that diya' is stronger than nur wherever it occurs; for (Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth), and for Allah is the highest similitude. The application of nur to abstract essences became common, rather than diya'. Perhaps that is because the logical progression of "accidentality" ( عرضية) from it to the mind is faster than its progression from nur to it. It has spread that it is an accident and a quality differing from color. The saying that it is an expression for the appearance of color, or that it is small bodies that separate from the luminous to connect to the illuminated, has been shown to be invalid in the philosophical books, even if some of the philosophers said so.

Then, the expression with nur here, rather than diya', is possible to be for a secret other than what occurred to people's minds, which is its being more suitable for the state of the hypocrites who were forbidden from benefiting and being illuminated by what came from Allah, which He, the Exalted, named nur in His saying: (There has come to you from Allah a light and a Book). It is as if Allah, Mighty be His Majesty, withheld the nur from them and forbade them from benefiting by it. He did not name it diya' so that this indication might be attained. If He had said here "He took away their diya'," it would not have reached this. Rather, He clothed him with the robes of His Names and poured upon him from the lights of His bounties, for he is the perfect Manifestation and the marked garment. This is so, and the annexation of nur to them is for the slightest connection, because it is for the fire in reality, but since they were benefiting by it, it was correct to annex it to them. Ibn al-Sumayqa' and Ibn Abi Abla read famma da'at (then when it shone) as a triliteral verb, and the derivation of it is known from what preceded. Al-Yamani read adhhaba Allah nurahum (Allah caused their light to go away), and in it is support for the position of Sibawayh.

(And He left them in darkness, they do not see): Conjoined to His saying, the Exalted, (Allah took away their light). It is more fulfilling of the intended meaning, so it is benefited from it as a confirmation for the negation of the light entirely, following what is in it of mention of darkness, its pluralization, its indefiniteness, the bringing of (they do not see), and making the waw (and) for the state (hal), with the estimation of qad (already). Along with what is in it, it requires the establishment of darkness before the removal of the light and with it, and the meaning is not upon that. "Leaving" (tark) in the well-known sense is throwing a thing, like leaving a staff from one's hand, or setting it free, whether it is sensible or otherwise, even if it is not in his hand, like leaving one's homeland and religion. Al-Raghib said: "Leaving" a thing is rejecting it intentionally and by choice, or by force and necessity. It is understood from the Misbah that it is literal in parting from sensibles, then it was borrowed for meanings. Whether the verb is from the copula verbs (nawasikh) that take two objects, due to its inclusion of the meaning of "rendering" (sayyara), or not, there is no disagreement. Everything here is possible. According to the first, hum (them) is its first object, and fi zulumatin (in darknesses) is its second object. And (they do not see) is an adjective for darkness, with the estimation of fiha (in it), or a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun or from hum. It is not permissible for fi zulumatin to be a state and (they do not see) to be a second object, because the origin in the predicate is not to be emphasized, even if some allowed it. According to the second, hum is its object, and (in darknesses, they do not see) are two synonymous states from the object, or overlapping ones—the first from the object and the second from the pronoun in it. Fi zulumatin is attached to tarakahum (He left them), and (they do not see) is a state.

Darkness in the well-known sense is the absence of light from what is supposed to be illuminated, so the opposition between it and light is the opposition of absence and possession. It was objected that darkness is a sensible quality, and nothing of "absence" is such, and that it is "created," as His saying, the Exalted: (And He made the darkness and the light) requires, and what is created can only be existing. The answer to the first is by denying the minor premise, for when we close the eye, we do not witness anything at all; likewise, when we open the eye in darkness. And to the second by denial as well, for the Creator, just as He makes the existing, He makes the specific absence, like blindness. What is contradictory to "being created" is pure absence. It is said: It is a quality preventing vision, so the opposition is the opposition of contraries. It was objected that if it were a quality, the state of one who is in the dark cave and one who is outside would not differ in seeing and the lack thereof. Unless it is said that what is meant is that it is a quality preventing the vision of what is in it, so the objection is repelled from it. It is perhaps weighed against it that it might apply to the original darkness preceding the existence of the world, without it, as was said. It is said: The opposition between light and darkness is the opposition of affirmation and negation. The pluralization of "darknesses" is either because of their multiplicity in reality—whether the plural pronoun refers to the kindlers or the hypocrites—or because it is in reality, even if it were one darkness, a single formulation of the plural was borrowed for it due to its intensity, as a hyperbole, as it is said "one person equals a thousand." Or because when everyone has a darkness specific to him, it was pluralized with that consideration. That is what they said.

Among the subtleties is that darkness, wherever it occurs in the Quran, occurs pluralized, and light, wherever it occurs, occurs singular. Perhaps the reason is that darkness, even if it is little, is multiplied, and light, even if it is much, is little unless it harms. Also, often they are used to point to things like disbelief and faith, and a little of disbelief is much, and much of faith is little, so one should not lean toward a little of that nor be content with a much of this. Also, the mine of darkness in this sense is the hearts of the disbelievers (And you think them together, and their hearts are scattered), and the rising place of light in that sense is the hearts of the believers, and they are like the heart of one man. Also, the light that is poured is the added existence, and it is one; there is no multiplicity in it, as His saying, the Exalted, guides you: (Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth). In darkness, one does not see such a thing. Also, darkness—the origin of its meaning revolves around prevention. For this reason, it was taken from their saying: "What prevented you (ma zalamaka) from doing such-and-such," i.e., "What hindered you?" In the Muthallathat of Ibn al-Sayyid: Al-Zalm (with a fatha on the za) is the figure of every thing that blocks the sight of the onlooker; it is said: "I met him at the beginning of the zulm," i.e., the first figure that blocks my sight. And I visited him, and the night is zalm, i.e., a preventer of the visit. It is as if it was called zulma (darkness) because it blocks in the well-known sense and prevents vision. So, with regard to the multiplicity of impediments, it was pluralized, and such a thing was not considered in the origin of the meaning of nur, so it was not pluralized. To other things than that.

They do not see is treated as intransitive because the object is thrown away, forgotten, and because there is no intention to a specific object rather than another, so it benefits generality. The majority read fi zulumatin with a damma on the lam, Al-Hasan and Abu al-Sammak with a sukūn, and a group with a fatha. All of them are plural of zulma. Some claimed that zulumat (with a fatha) is the plural of zulm, plural of zulma, so it is the plural of the plural. Turning to the fatha for lightening, while hearing it in its likes, is easier than claiming the plural of the plural, for it is not analogical and there is no definitive evidence for it. Al-Yamani read fi zulmatin (in one darkness).

In the verse is an indication of comparing the running of the word of testimony upon the tongues of those mentioned, and adorning oneself with the adornment of the believers, and the likes of that—which prevents their killing and returns to them with worldly benefit like security, spoils, and the lack of their sincerity in what they showed by the hypocrisy that is harmful in religion—to kindling a fire that illuminates to benefit by it, which Allah the Exalted extinguished. So the winds and the rains blew upon them, and He made its kindler in darkness and regret. It is possible that when they were described as (those who purchased error with guidance), this similitude followed it to compare their guidance that they sold with the fire illuminating what is around the kindler, and the error that they purchased, and by which Allah the Exalted sealed their hearts, with Allah's taking away their light and leaving them in darknesses.

The interpretation narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, as Ibn Jarir extracted from him, is that this is a similitude for the faith they showed to reap its fruits, with a fire that has radiant lights, kindled for benefit and insight, and for the taking away of its effect and the blotting out of its light by their destruction and the exposing of their state by Allah's extinguishing it and taking away its light. The comparison includes other aspects. Among the Quranic inner meanings mentioned by our masters the Sufis, may Allah the Exalted benefit us with them, is that the verse is a similitude for one who entered the path of the saints by imitation, not by verification. He did the work of the outward, but did not find the sweetness of the inward, so he left the works after the loss of the states. Or it is a similitude for one who kindled the fires of claim and has no reality, so his outward states were illuminated by reputation and acceptance, so Allah the Exalted exposed his hypocrisy among the creation until they cast him out in the Hereafter, and he finds no escape from the scandal on the day when secrets are tested. Abu al-Hasan al-Warraq said: This is a similitude Allah the Exalted struck for one who did not correct the states of volition, so he ascended from those states by claims to the states of the elders. He would have had the states of his volition illuminate him if he had corrected them by adhering to their etiquettes, but when he mixed them with claims, Allah the Exalted took away those lights from him, and he remained in the darknesses of his claims, not seeing the way out of them. We ask Allah the Exalted for pardon and well-being, and we seek refuge in Him from turning back after progressing.