Tafsir of An-Nur 24:35

(Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth). An-Nur (Light), in language, according to Ibn al-Sikkit, is al-diya’ (radiance). This is apparent in that there is no difference between al-nur (light) and al-diya’. However, a group of scholars has distinguished between them, even if the application of one to the other is common. Imam al-Suhayli said in al-Rawd, regarding the saying of Waraqah: "And a radiance of light appears in the lands / by which he establishes the creatures so that they may move," that it clarifies the meaning of light and radiance, noting that radiance is what spreads from light, while light is the origin. In the Revelation: (Then when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light) and (It is He who made the sun a radiance and the moon a light), because the light of the moon does not spread from it as the radiance spreads from the sun, especially at the two ends of the month.

The philosophers said: Radiance is what belongs to a thing from its own essence, and light is what overflows onto it from facing a luminous object. Based on this, they argue for the interpretation of the verse: (It is He who made the sun a radiance and the moon a light), for the varying phases of the moon—its proximity and distance from the sun, along with its eclipse during the earth’s interposition—is evidence that its light is shed upon it from facing the sun. You know that there is much discourse among Islamic scholars on this, and we have presented our views elsewhere. Perhaps the most preferable way of distinguishing them is what was previously mentioned in the words of al-Suhayli.

Some verifiers mentioned that it is known from their speech that both light and radiance have an aspect of superiority. The superiority of light lies in it being the origin and principle of radiance, and the superiority of radiance lies in the fact that actual vision depends on it. Some claimed that "Light" in an absolute sense is superior to "Radiance" due to the verse we are currently in, but this is a matter of research that will be understood while Allah the Exalted explains it.

Know that the philosophers differed regarding the reality of light. Some claimed it consists of small bodies that detach from the luminous object and connect to the illuminated one. This has been refuted in several ways:

1. If it were a moving body, its motion would be natural, and natural motion is towards one direction, not all directions; yet light falls upon a body from every direction.
2. If it entered through a window and we blocked it at once, those luminous parts must either remain in the house, which would mean the house remains illuminated as it was before, which is not the case; or they would have exited the window before it was blocked, which is impossible because the blockage was the cause of their cessation; or they are not remaining at all, which implies that the interposition of a body between two bodies necessitates the annihilation of one of them, which is known to be false.
3. The notion that these small bodies are "lights" must either be identical to their being "bodies," which is false because the concept of light is different from the concept of body; or it is distinct from it, meaning these bodies carry that quality, detaching from the luminous and connecting to the illuminated. If those bodies are not perceptible, the claim is obviously false, for how then could they be a medium for sensing other things? If they are perceptible, they would veil what is behind them, and it would be necessary that the more they gather, the more they veil; but the matter is the opposite, for the more intense the light, the more it reveals.
4. When the sun rises from the horizon, the entire face of the earth is illuminated at once. It is far-fetched that these particles travel from the fourth sphere to the earth's face in that brief moment—not to mention the state of this argument given the impossibility of piercing the spheres.
5. The detachment of particles from celestial bodies entails withering and depletion, leaving their places devoid of their complete measure or the measure of their parts, or implying they are constantly dissolving while receiving replacements for what dissolves from their mass—making them bodies that are nutritive, generated, and corruptible, which is impossible in celestial bodies.

Some of their later scholars countered these arguments, stating they are extremely weak. Regarding the first, that light being a body does not entail it being moving, nor that its occurrence is through movement, rather it exists instantaneously without motion. Regarding the second, one could say: the existence of the created effect without matter is only through the Agent who brought it into being, provided there is no veil preventing the emanation. When the obstacle occurs, the emanation does not take place, so the emanated light ceases without matter remaining of it, because its existence was not through the partnership of matter; thus, its non-existence follows the same logic. Upon blocking the door that prevents emanation, the ray ceases from the house at once, and there is no difference in that whether it is an accident or a substance. The secret in both is that light absolutely does not result from the passivity of matter and the partnership of prime matter as other substances and passive accidents do; hence, none of them cease instantaneously if a veil is assumed between them and the agent cause, except after time and impossibility. As for the third, the answer is that difference in concept does not negate unity and identity in existence, so what was mentioned is a fallacy arising from confusing the concept of a thing with its reality. As for the fourth and fifth, their foundation rests on separation and traversing distance, not merely on substance and body.

Furthermore, some went to the view that it is an accident among the perceptible qualities, saying: it is needless of definition like other perceptibles. Defining it as "the first perfection of the transparent insofar as it is transparent" or "a quality by which vision does not depend on the vision of something else" is a definition through that which is more obscure. It seems the intent is to call attention to some of its properties. Among these, some said: it is the very appearance of color. Others argued for their distinction, presenting several points:

1. The appearance of color indicates a renewal of a matter, so it is either the color itself, a relative attribute, or a non-relative one. The first is false because if light were synonymous with the renewal of color or the renewed color, the first would imply it is only illuminated at the moment of its renewal, and the second would require radiance to be the color itself, leaving no meaning to their statement "radiance is the appearance of color." If they mean radiance is an existential quality added to the essence of color and call it "appearance," that is a verbal dispute. If they claim that appearance is the renewal of a relative state, that is false because radiance is a non-relative thing; otherwise, it would be an intelligible thing falling under the category of relation, and thus not perceptible at all. Yet, visual sense is acted upon by it and harmed by intense light until it fails. Intelligible matters do not produce such an effect; therefore, if it is not a relative matter, it cannot be interpreted as a relative state.
2. Whiteness may be radiant and bright, and likewise blackness; if the radiance of each were the essence of the color itself, it would imply that some light is the opposite of its own light, which is impossible, for the opposite of light is darkness.
3. Color exists without radiance, as in a colored body in the dark; likewise, radiance exists without color, as in crystal when light falls upon it. Thus, they are distinct because each exists without the other.
4. A red body, for example, when radiant, reflects light to its opposite; sometimes light is reflected from it to another body, and sometimes both color and light are reflected together when they are intense, such that the object reflected upon turns red. If it were merely the appearance of color, it would be impossible for it to impart to another a pure luster. One cannot say: this brilliance is an expression of the appearance of color in that receiver, because it is said: why is it that when the color of the body reflecting its light intensifies, it hides the light reflected onto the other object, negates it, and gives it its own color?

Some later scholars said: The view has settled that perceptible light, as it is perceptible, is an expression of a mode of existence of the visible substance present to the soul in this world. As for what exists outside, parallel to it, its existence does not exceed the existence of color. The points mentioned regarding their distinction are flawed. The first is flawed because the appearance of color is its existence, which is a real attribute that can be related and attributed to the perceiving faculty, and in this regard, renewal occurs to it. Regarding their statement that "it makes radiance the same as color," we say: yes, but they are distinct by consideration, just as essence and existence in every thing are united in essence and distinct by consideration. Light and radiance return in meaning to a specific existence occurring to some bodies, while darkness is the complete absence of that specific existence, and shadow is its partial absence. Color is a mixture occurring between the carrier of this luminous existence and the carrier of its absence in various ways. Thus, colors are nothing but levels of the combinations of lights. The arguments brought to refute this are weak. Accordingly, their statement that "light is the appearance of color" is correct, and so is the statement of those who say it is other than color, for light, as light, does not differ, as no mixture or interference with absence or darkness is considered in it, while colors are different. The second point is also dispelled by what has been established, and by the fact that although color is not other than light, the levels of lights differ in intensity and weakness; along with this difference, they may differ in other ways according to the many combinations and mixtures occurring between counts of light, their potentiality and actuality, their origins and branches, and counts of darkness—meaning the absence of that light, its potentiality, actuality, origin, and branch. These colors are mostly material things or related to matter, and matter is the source of division and composition between existences, non-existences, and potentialities. It is not strange that these colors we see arise from various combinations of light and darkness, falling into their places in the manner mentioned, and then another light falls upon them by facing a luminous object. He who said light is the essence of color did not say every light is the essence of every color, just as he who said existence is the essence of essence did not say every existence is the essence of every essence, which would require that no existence be excluded from existence and no existence be the opposite of another. Colors have differing rulings, and some are opposite matters, but as colors, not as lights, just as existences have differing rulings and some are opposite things, but as essences, not as existences, despite existence and essence being one. As for the third and fourth points, their rebuttal is easy by what has been clarified.

This is the ultimate of what they said regarding the perceptible light by which bodies appear to vision. They have another application for light, which is "that which is manifest in itself and makes other things manifest." They said: in this sense, it is equal to existence, or rather it is existence itself. Thus, it is a simple reality like existence, divided as existence is divided: among it is the Light Necessary by Essence, which dominates all other things; and among it are intellectual, psychic, and physical lights. The Necessary Exalted is the Light of lights, infinite in intensity, while all else is light of finite intensity, meaning there is light above them more intense than them, even if some of them, like intellectual lights, their effects do not stop at a limit. All are from the gleams of His light, Majestic and Exalted, even dense bodies, for in terms of existence, they are not devoid of light, but it is mixed with the darknesses of non-existence and potentialities. Once you know this, accept that applying "Light" to Allah, the Exalted, in the linguistic and philosophical sense mentioned previously, is incorrect due to His absolute transcendence, Majestic and Exalted, above corporeality, quality, and their consequences. Applying it to Him, the Exalted, in the aforementioned sense—that which is manifest in itself and makes other things manifest—has been permitted by a group, among them the Proof of Islam, al-Ghazali. For he, may his secret be sanctified, after mentioning the meaning of light and its levels in his treatise Mishkat al-Anwar, said: "Once you know that light returns to manifestation and making manifest, know that there is no darkness more intense than the veil of non-existence, for the dark is called dark because it is not manifest to sight, even though it exists in itself. So, that which is not existent at all, how does it not deserve to be the limit in darkness?"

In opposition to it is existence, which is light, for a thing, if it is not manifest in its essence, is not manifest to others. Existence is divided into that which belongs to a thing from its essence, and that which belongs to it from others. That which has existence from others is borrowed; it has no subsistence in itself, but rather, if its essence is considered in terms of its essence, it is pure non-existence, and it is only existence in terms of its relation to others; and that is not true existence. Thus, the true existence is Allah the Exalted, just as the true Light is Allah, Mighty and Majestic. He said before this: "I say, and I do not care: the application of the name 'Light' to other than the first Light is pure metaphor, for everything other than Him, if its essence is considered, in itself and from itself, has no light; rather, its luminosity is borrowed from another. Its borrowed luminosity has no subsistence in itself, but in another, and the relation of the borrowed to the lender is pure metaphor." He interpreted the light in this verse—the saying of the Exalted, (Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth)—by that. Then he pointed to the aspect of attribution to (the heavens and the earth) by saying: "It should not be hidden from you, after you have known that He, the Exalted, is the Light, and there is no light other than Him, and that He is all lights and the total Light, for Light is an expression of that by which things are revealed, and above it is that by which, for which, and from which they are revealed, and above which there is no light, from which it borrows and seeks aid; rather, that belongs to Him in His essence, by His essence, not from another. Then you know that this is not characterized by except the first Light, and then you know that the heavens and the earth are saturated with light from the two levels of light—that is, that attributed to sight and that attributed to insight, meaning to sense and to reason, like the light of the stars and the essences of the angels, and like the observed lights spread over everything on earth, and like the lights of Prophethood and the Qur'an, and so on." This is a Sufi leaning, and the Sufis do not shy away from saying that He, the Exalted, far be He above what the wrongdoers say, is the All; rather, there is no identity for others except by metaphor. They say: "There is no god but Allah" is the monotheism of the commoners, and "There is no god but He" is the monotheism of the elite, because it is more complete, more specific, more inclusive, more truthful, more precise, and draws its possessor more into absolute singularity and pure unity. Al-Ghazali said this also in the mentioned treatise. You know that this is something that cannot be reached by the light of reasoning; rather, it is a stage beyond the stage of reason, to which one is not guided except by the light of Allah, Mighty and Majestic.

Some verifiers permitted that the meaning of "Light" in the verse be the "Creator," as if it were said: Allah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The aspect of this is that it is a majaz mursal (synecdoche) in consideration of the necessary meaning of Light, which is manifestation in itself and making others manifest. It is said: it is a metaphor, the object borrowed from is Light in the sense of "manifest in itself, making manifest all else," and the object borrowed for is the Necessary Being, the Creator of all else. The meaning being "the bestower and giver of perception" is a majaz mursal or metaphor, and the speech is based on the deletion of an attribute, i.e., "Light of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth." This is close to what Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat brought out from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, that he said: (Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth), meaning: the Guide of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth. This is a good view. It came in another narration brought out by Ibn Jarir from him, may Allah be pleased with him, that he interpreted "Light" as "the Arranger," saying: Allah is the Arranger of the heavens and the earth; He arranges the matter in them. This was also narrated from Mujahid, and some counted it among the "brilliant similes."

The aspect of resemblance is that both arrangement and light are causes of guidance to interests. It is permitted that there be an explicit metaphor, and it was countered that mentioning both parts of the simile—Allah the Exalted and Light—negates this. The answer is that mentioning them only negates it if it is done in a way that signals the simile and each of the resembling parts is mentioned in its own essence. Here, Allah the Exalted was not compared to Light; rather, the "Arranger" was compared to it, and mentioning a part to which the resembling object applies, or a general term including it, does not negate that, as the author of al-Kashshaf indicated in places, and the masters of rhetoric have stated. It is said: the meaning is "He who is transcendent from every defect," and from this is their saying, "a woman is nawwar," meaning free from the suspicion of immorality; this is also from the category of metaphor. It is said: the speech is based on the deletion of an attribute, as in "Zayd is generosity," i.e., possessor of light; this is supported, as it is said, by His saying after: (The likeness of His light / and Allah guides to His light).

It is said: "Light" in the sense of "Illuminator," and this was narrated from al-Hasan, Abu al-'Aliyah, and al-Dahhak, and a group of commentators are upon this. It is supported by the reading of some as (munawwir) (Illuminator), and likewise the reading of Ali, may Allah honor his face, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Abd al-Aziz al-Makki, Zayd ibn Ali, Thabit ibn Abi Hafsah, al-Qawarsi, Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, and Abdullah ibn Abbas ibn Abi Rabi'ah as (nawwara), a past tense verb, with (al-ard) in the accusative case. His, the Exalted, illumination of the heavens and the earth was explained by the sun, the moon, and all the stars. It was attributed to al-Hasan and those with him that the illumination of the heavens is by the angels, peace be upon them, and the illumination of the earth is by the prophets, peace be upon them, and the scholars. It was attributed to Ubayy ibn Ka'b. The illumination in the first is sensory, and in the second, intellectual. It is said—and this is what he chose—that His, the Exalted, illumination of them is by what is in them of the formative and revealed signs, which point to His existence, His unity, and all His attributes, Mighty and Majestic, and which guide to the goodness of livelihood and the hereafter.

The sentence is an initiation intended either to verify that His, the Exalted, clarification, indicated by His saying (And We have certainly sent down clear signs), is not limited to what was mentioned in this noble Surah, or to confirm the clarification in the glorious Qur'an. Something like this does not come to pass according to some of the previous sayings in explaining the meaning of Light, and this is a strong view in the suitability of the verse to what precedes it; no other view among them seems to show the same. The scholar al-Tibi mentioned in explaining the suitability speech that is of mixed quality—if you desire it, return to it.

The specification of the heavens and the earth by mention is because they are the known abode for the accountable beings who need what directs and guides them to what preceded. The scholar al-Baydawi said after mentioning several possibilities regarding the meaning of "Light": "Its attribution to them is to indicate the breadth of its radiance, or because they encompass the sensory and intellectual lights, and human perceptions are limited to them, to what is attached to them, and to what is signified by them." It is said that they mean the entire world, just as "the Emigrants and the Helpers" is applied to all the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. This was countered as being the application of a part to the whole metaphorically, and in al-Talwih, it was stipulated that the whole must be composed of a true composition, and it has not been established in the language that "earth" is applied to the aggregate of earth and heaven, nor "mankind" to the human and the beast.

The answer is that it is not necessarily a metaphor, as it could be a metonymy; even if granted, what is in al-Talwih is not universally accepted, or it is a majority case. Al-Zamakhshari mentioned in His, the Exalted, saying: (Nothing in the earth or in the heaven is hidden from Him), that he expressed the entire world by "heaven and earth." The scholar said in his commentary: "It is from the application of the part to the whole; the meaning then is: Allah is the Light of the entire world."

(The likeness of His light): i.e., His, the Exalted, intellectual and revealed proofs in the heavens and the earth by which He guided whom He willed to what contains his goodness. This was narrated from Abu Muslim, and the Qur'an follows this in a primary order. From Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, and Zayd ibn Aslam, it is said that the meaning of "Light" here is the Qur'an, as is shown by what preceded of describing its signs as "sent down" and "made clear." It has also been explicitly stated to be a light in His, the Exalted, saying: (And We have sent down to you a clear light). It is said that the meaning is "the Truth," for "Light" has come as a metaphor for it, just as "darkness" is a metaphor for falsehood in His, the Exalted, saying: (Allah is the ally of those who believe; He brings them out of darknesses into the light), i.e., from the lights of falsehood into the Truth. The aspect of resemblance is manifestation. Among their proverbs is "the Truth is manifest." This is sufficient for the permissibility of the metaphor, and it does not depend on the realization of the meaning of "making manifest" in the Light within the Truth; indeed, if that also realizes, it is "light upon light." However, the weakness of interpreting it as "the Truth" rather than the "Qur'an" is favored because the context of explaining the status of the signs and describing them with the mentioned clarification rejects it, with no prior mention of "the Truth." In al-Kashf, the "Truth" by which "Light" was interpreted is that which opposes falsehood, encompassing monotheism, the religious laws, and what has been pointed to by the evidence of hearing and reason; the intent is not that the heavens and the earth are two signs of the existence of their Creator, rather that is also included in the generality of the word. End quote.

It is said the meaning is "the Guidance" which the clear signs pointed to; it is said "the Guidance" absolutely. Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat brought out from Ibn Abbas that he said: (The likeness of His light) is the likeness of His guidance in the heart of the believer. Ibn Jarir brought out from Anas that he said: "My Lord says: My light is My guidance." Some mentioned that its interpretation as "Guidance" is the choice of the majority, and that its interpretation as "Truth" in the general sense agrees with it. It is said the meaning is the knowledge and sciences which He, the Exalted, shed upon the heart of the believer, and its attribution to Him, the Exalted, is because it is His, the Exalted, emanation. From Ubayy ibn Ka'b and al-Dahhak, it is interpreted as the "Faith" which He, the Exalted, gave to the believer and enabled him to achieve.

In some narrations from Ibn Abbas, it is interpreted as the "acts of obedience" with which He, Majestic be His Praise, adorned the heart of the believer, thus encompassing faith and all other praiseworthy heart-acts. It is said the meaning of "His light" is the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him; the application of "Light" to him, peace and blessings be upon him, has come in His, the Exalted, saying: (There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book), according to one view. Others said otherwise, as you will know, if Allah the Exalted wills.

The pronoun in all these views returns to Him, the Exalted, as is apparent. It is permitted that the pronoun returns to the believer; this was narrated from Ikrimah, and it is one of the narrations, and al-Hakim authenticated it from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both. It was also narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka'b; rather, Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Anbari in al-Masahif brought out from al-Sha'bi that he said: Ubayy ibn Ka'b read: "The likeness of the light of the believer." Abu Sa'id and Ibn al-Mundhir brought out from Abu al-'Aliyah that Ubayy read: "The likeness of the light of him who believed in Him," or said: "The likeness of him who believed in Him."

In al-Bahr, it is narrated from Ubayy that he read: "The likeness of the light of the believers." It is said the pronoun returns to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him; this was narrated by a group from Ibn Abbas and from Ka'b al-Ahbar, and Abu Hayyan also recounted it from Ibn Jubayr. It is said it returns to the Qur'an; it is said to Faith. It is not hidden that returning the pronoun to something not mentioned in the speech, when there is nothing in the speech to indicate it, or if there is, but the indication is hidden, is very contrary to the apparent meaning, especially if the purpose of the speech is lost by that. The "Likeness" refers to the amazing state, i.e., the state of His, the Exalted, light, amazing in status. (As a niche): i.e., as its state in illumination and lighting. Abu Hayyan said: i.e., as the light of a niche, which is the non-penetrating alcove, as Ibn Abbas, Abu Malik, Ibn Jubayr, Sa'id ibn 'Iyad, and the majority said. Abu Musa said: it is the iron or lead piece in which the wick is placed inside the glass. From Mujahid, it is the iron piece from which the lamp is hung. It is as you see, and reliance is upon the view of the majority. From Ibn Atiyyah, it is the most correct of the sayings. Upon all of them, it is an Ethiopian word Arabized, as Ibn Qutaybah, al-Kalbi, and others said. It is said it is Roman Arabized. Al-Zajjaj said, as in Majma' al-Bayan: "It is permissible for it to be Arabic, so it is of the measure muf'alah; the origin is mashkuwah, so the waw was changed to alif due to its mobility and the openness of what preceded it." Ibn Jinni went to the view that the origin of its alif is the waw, proving it by the fact that the Arabs have steered it towards the way of the waw as they did with al-salah.

Al-Kisa'i read, by the narration of al-Duri, with imalah (inclination of the vowel). (In it a lamp): a large, piercing lamp, or it is said the burning wick. (The lamp is in a glass): in a lamp made of clear, bright glass. The damma on the zay is the dialect of Hijaz; its breaking (kasrah) and opening (fathah) are the dialects of Qays. With the opening, Abu Raja' and Nasr ibn 'Asim read in the narration of Ibn Mujahid.

Some read with the kasrah also, and it was read with both in His, the Exalted, saying: (The glass as if it were a brilliant star): luminous, glittering like Venus in its clarity and brightness. It is attributed to al-durr (pearl), so its weight is fa'ali. It is permitted that its origin is durri', with a hamzah at the end, as Hamzah and Abu Bakr read; the ya' was changed and assimilated into the ya', so its weight is fa'il, and it is from al-dar' (repelling), for it repels darkness with its light, or some of its light repels some from its glitter. It is permitted that it is from al-dar' (flowing), but that is not strong. Similar is what is said that it is from dara'a when it rises suddenly and surprises. It is not hidden to the seeker that fa'il is rare in their speech. In al-Lubab, fa'il is strange, having no peer; mariq for the dye of safflower, or what has fattened of horses, and aliyyah, sirriyyah, and durriyyah; Abu Ali said this. In al-Bahr, it was also heard: marixh for that which is inside the dry horn, and in it are two dialects, damma of the mim and its kasrah. Al-Farra' said: "Nothing was heard except mariq, and it is foreign." Sibawayh counted this among the structures of the Arabs, and some did not establish this measure at all. Abu Ubayd said: the origin of durri' is duru' like sabuh, so the damma was made a kasrah for heaviness, and the waw a ya' due to the kasrah of what preceded it, as they said in 'atu'uti. Its weight is fa'ul. Likewise, it was said for sirriyyah and durriyyah. Some made sirriyyah from al-sirr (marriage or concealment), and the damma is from the changes of attribution; its weight is fa'liyyah as in al-Sihah. Al-Akhfash sees it as from al-surur (joy), and the last ra' has been replaced by ya', which is usual in the verb, for they said: tasarrara jariyati and tasarriytu, as they said tazannantu and tazannaytu. Its weight upon this, as al-Khafaji said, is fa'liyyah. Some made durriyyah an attribution to al-dharr (ants) in a non-standard way because they were brought out like ants from the loins of Adam, peace be upon him.

Qatadah, Zayd ibn Ali, and al-Dahhak read (durri) with fathah of the dal, and this was narrated from Nasr ibn 'Asim, Abu Raja', and Ibn al-Musayyib. al-Zuhri read (durri) with kasrah of the ra'. Abu 'Amr and al-Kisa'i read (durri') with kasrah and a hamzah at the end; this is a frequent structure in nouns like sikkin and in attributes like sikkir. Qatadah also, Aban ibn Uthman, Ibn al-Musayyib, Abu Raja', 'Amr ibn Qa'id, al-A'mash, and Nasr ibn 'Asim read (durri') with hamzah and fathah of the dal. Ibn Jinni said: this is rare; nothing of it was memorized except al-sakkinah with fathah of the sin and shaddah of the kaf in a dialect recounted by Abu Zayd. It was read (du'ri) with the hamzah preceding the ra' in a static state, and this is among the rare anomalies. In repeating "the lamp" and "the glass" as defined after they had previously been indefinite, and informing about them with what follows them, while the speech could be organized by saying "like a niche in it a lamp in a glass as if it were a brilliant star," is to aggrandize their status and elevate their rank by interpretation after vagueness, and detail after generalization. By establishing what follows them for them in the way of information—which signals the original intent rather than the description which signals the indication of existence in general—there is what is not hidden. The first sentence is in the place of nominative as it is an attribute for "lamp," and the second sentence is in the place of genitive as it is an attribute for "glass," and the lam is sufficient, as in Majma' al-Bayan. Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim [notes the absence of a connector], as if it were said: "in it a lamp which is in a glass which is as if it were a brilliant star."

(Burning from a tree): i.e., the burning of the lamp begins from a tree. (Blessed): i.e., of many benefits, as its wick was saturated with its oil. It is said it was described as blessed because it grows in the land which Allah the Exalted blessed for the worlds. It is said seventy prophets blessed it, among them Ibrahim, peace be upon him. (Olive): an appositive to "tree." Abu Ali said it is an explanatory apposition to it, and this is built upon the view of the Kufans who permit explanatory apposition in indefinite nouns, while the Basrans do not permit it except in definite nouns. In the vagueness of the tree and its description as blessed, then the substitution or explanation, is an aggrandizement of its status. Praise of olive oil has come in the Hadith because it is from it. Abd ibn Humayd brought out in his Musnad, al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Season with oil and anoint yourselves with it, for it is from a blessed tree." Al-Bayhaqi brought out from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, that oil was mentioned in her presence, and she said: "The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, used to order that it be eaten, anointed with, and used as nose drops, and he used to say: 'It is from a blessed tree.'" It is in its essence praiseworthy; in the Hadith, it is a cure for hemorrhoids, and physicians have mentioned many benefits for it. He, peace and blessings be upon him, used to eat bread with it, and he, peace and blessings be upon him, ate tongue cooked with barley, and in it was oil and spices, so let it be preserved.

The Brothers [Hafs and Warsh], Abu Bakr al-Hasan, Zayd ibn Ali, Qatadah, Ibn Waththab, Talhah, Isa, and al-A'mash read (tuqadu) with a ta' in the second person [or as a passive] as a present tense verb from uqidat, built for the passive, in that the pronoun standing in the place of the subject is for "glass," and the attribution of the action to it is said to be by way of hyperbole. It is said it is by estimating an attribute, i.e., "its lamp." al-Hasan, al-Sulami, Qatadah also, Ibn Muhaysin, Salam, Mujahid, and Ibn Abi Ishaq and al-Mufaddal from 'Asim read (tuqadu) with the ta' also as a present tense verb tatawaqqadu, and its origin is tatawaqqadu with two *ta'*s, so it was lightened by the deletion of one of them.

Al-Khafaji mentioned that it is the reading of Abu 'Amr and Ibn Kathir, and the attribution in it is to the glass as passed. al-Sulami, Qatadah, and Salam also read (yuqadu) with the ya' as a present tense verb yatawaqqadu also. It came likewise from al-Hasan and Ibn Muhaysin, and its origin is yatawaqqadu, i.e., the lamp, so the ta' was deleted. This is not known with the ya'; what is known is deletion upon the meeting of two identical *ta'*s.

The aspect of this, as Ibn Jinni said, is that he likened a letter of the present tense to a letter of the present tense, meaning the ya' to the ta', so it was treated as its treatment, just as the ta' and nun in ta'udu and na'udu were likened to the ya' of ya'udu, so the waw was deleted with them just as it was deleted in it, due to its occurrence between a ya' and a kasrah.

It was read (tawaqada) with the ta' from above in the form of the past tense of tafa''ala, and the pronoun is for the lamp, i.e., the burning of the lamp began from a tree.

(Neither of the east nor of the west): i.e., exposed to the sun, not shaded by a mountain or a tree, nor is anything hidden from it from the time it rises until it sets, and that is better for its oil. It was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ikrimah, Qatadah, and al-Kalbi, and this is an interpretation by the necessary meaning, i.e., its being between the east and the west. From Ibn Zayd: i.e., it is not from the trees of the East nor from the trees of the West, because what is specific to one of the two directions was less oily and weaker in light; but it is from the trees of Sham (Levant), which is between the East and the West, and its olives are the best that can be. Abu Hayyan said in his Tadhkirah: "The meaning is: it is never in an eastern place, i.e., in a place where shade does not reach it, and it is never in a shaded place, i.e., in a place where the sun does not reach it. The result is: the olive tree is not reached by the sun alone, nor by the shade alone, but this reaches it at one time and that at another time." Al-Farra' and al-Zajjaj said: "The meaning is: not eastern only and not western only, but it is eastern and western, i.e., the sun reaches it upon its rising and its setting." You know that it is necessary to estimate the restriction "only" after each of "eastern" and "western" as you heard, for the negation to be directed at it, thus the composition benefits the gathering of the two matters; otherwise, its apparent meaning is their negation. From al-Mutalla', this is like the saying of al-Farazdaq: "By the hands of men who did not sheath their swords / And the slain did not abound by them when they were drawn." Since its meaning is: they sheathed their swords and abounded in killing by them. It was countered in al-Kashf that there is no proof in the verse for that, for it is possible he meant "they did not sheath them not abounding in killing" as a state, and its benefiting the mentioned meaning is clear then. From Ibn Abbas: that it is in a grove surrounded by it, so it is not revealed from the side of the East nor from the side of the West. It was countered that this is not correct from Ibn Abbas, because if it were of this state, its fruit would spoil. From al-Hasan: that this is a simile, and it is not from the trees of the world, for if it were in the world, it would be eastern or western. From Ikrimah: that it is from the trees of Paradise. Perhaps he was certain of that due to what al-Hasan mentioned, and what is in it is not hidden. al-Dahhak read (la sharqiyyatan wa la gharbiyyatan) with raf': i.e., it is not eastern and not western. Abu Hayyan said: i.e., it is neither eastern nor western. Perhaps what we mentioned is better. The sentence is in the place of an attribute for "olive."

(Its oil would almost glow, even if no fire touched it): i.e., it is in such clarity and illumination that it glows by itself without touching fire at all. The word "if" in such places is not to explain the non-existence of a thing for the non-existence of another in the past time—so no answer is observed for it, which has been deleted out of confidence in the indication of what preceded it on it—except when intending to explain the grammar according to industrial rules. Rather, it is to explain the verification of what the previous speech benefits of the ruling, whether positive or negative, in every assumed state of the circumstances accompanying it in general, by introducing it to the most distant of them. The waw entering upon it is to connect the mentioned sentence to a deleted sentence opposing it according to al-Juzuli and those who agreed with him. The aggregate of the two sentences is in the place of the accusative as a state from the object in the positive or negative verb. The estimation of the noble verse is: "Its oil would almost glow if fire touched it, and even if fire did not touch it," i.e., it glows in every state of the existence of the condition of illumination and its absence. The first sentence was deleted as is the standard in the chapter, out of confidence in the indication of the second upon it, a clear indication.

Al-Zamakhshari said: "The waw is for state, and its requirement is that 'if' with what follows it is a state, so the estimation is 'and the state, if it were or if it were not such,' i.e., assumed its existence or its non-existence." But al-Zamakhshari and the like, al-Marzuqi, estimate "even if the state were such." This was countered that conditional particles are not fit for the state, because they require non-realization, and the state requires its opposite. For this, he committed to the view that it has shed its conditionality and that it is interpreted as a state, just as the state is in the meaning of the condition, like "I will certainly do it, whatever it may be," i.e., if this or other than it exists. Therefore, it does not need a consequence at all. The estimation of the state after "if" is, as it is said, a sign that he intended to make the sentence a state before the entry of the condition that opposes it, then "if" entered as an alarm that it is a state not realized. Al-Radi's objection to the saying that it is conjunctive—that if it were so, there would have been an explicit mention of the connected-to in usage, and it is not so—he went to the view that it is parenthetical. It is permissible to parenthesize at the end of speech, and the intent from it is emphasis. The objection to his objection was answered by the fact that the manifestation of the consequence of the result upon the connected-to was sufficient without mentioning it, until its mention would be a repetition. In summary, the majority connected it, and they were pleased with it being conjunctive, and by making the aggregate of the two sentences in the place of a state as you heard, what is imagined that "almost" opposes the consideration of connection here is dispelled, so contemplate. Ibn Abbas and al-Hasan read (yamsashu) with the ya' as present tense. He made it good by the separation and the fact that the subject is not a real feminine.

(Light upon light): i.e., it is a great light existing upon light, on the basis that "Light" is the predicate of a deleted subject, and the prepositional phrase is connected to a deleted word which occurred as an attribute for it, emphasizing what the indefiniteness benefited of grandiosity. The sentence is a summary for the simile, a declaration of what resulted from it, and a preparation for what follows it. The intent of the pronoun is the light whose great-status attribute was likened by what you heard, not the light which is the object of the simile. To carry it upon that is not appropriate, as it is said regarding the status of the glorious Revelation. The meaning of its being "light above light" is not that it is one specific light or non-specific light above another like it, nor that it is the aggregate of only two lights; rather, it is a multiplied light without limitation to its multiplication by a specific limit. Limiting the levels of multiplication of what was likened to it from the light of the niche by what was mentioned is because it is the furthest levels of its multiplication usually. For if the lamp is in a narrow place like a niche, it is more luminous for it and gathers its light more due to the addition of the reflected ray from it to the origin of the ray, unlike the spacious place, for light is scattered in it and spreads. The lamp is the most helpful thing for the increase of illumination, and likewise the oil and its clarity. There is nothing beyond these levels that increases its light in brightness and extends it with another level of illumination usually.

The apparent to me is that the simile which the noble verse contained, from the simile of the intelligible—which is His, the Exalted, light, meaning His, the Exalted, proofs—but insofar as they are proofs, or the Qur'an, or monotheism, the religious laws, and what has been pointed to by the evidence of hearing and reason, or guidance, or similar to that, with the perceptible—which is the light of the niche, hyperbolized in its description—is that there are no parts in the object of the simile from which the resemblance is extracted to build upon it that it is compound or divided. It was mentioned that if the intent is the simile of light in the meaning of guidance which the clear signs pointed to, it is from the compound intellectual simile, and the form extracted has been likened to another. For although light, its word is singular, it signifies multiple; likewise if the intent is the simile of what Allah the Exalted illuminated with of the heart of the believer from the knowledges and sciences with the light of the niche spread in it from its lamp. In the good Tibi annotations, after choosing that the intent by light is guidance by revelation He sends down and a Messenger He sends, what is apparent is that the simile is from the divided simile; he finally stated that explicitly and proved it by the fact that repetition in the verse demands that. He has lengthened the speech in this place, and among it is that the appropriate similes upon this meaning are the chest of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, his noble heart, the divine subtlety in it, the Qur'an, and what the heart is affected by upon seeking its aid. The detail is that he likened his chest, peace and blessings be upon him, to the niche, because it is like the alcove, having two faces; from one face it borrows light from the illuminated heart, and from another, that borrowed light overflows upon the creation, and that is for its preparedness by its opening twice, once in a lamp and once at his ascension. Allah the Exalted said: (Is one whose chest Allah has expanded to Islam, so he is upon a light from his Lord?) This is a correct simile that has become famous from a group of commentators. The Sunnah-reviver narrated from Ka'b: "This is a simile Allah the Exalted struck for His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: the niche is his chest, the glass is his heart, the lamp in it is Prophethood, the blessed tree is the tree of Prophethood." The Imam narrated from some of them that the niche is the chest of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, the glass is his heart, and the lamp is what is in his heart from the religion. In the truths of al-Sulami from Abu Sa'id al-Kharras: "The niche is the chest of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, the glass is his noble heart, and the lamp is the light which is in it." He likened him, the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, to the glass described as the brilliant star for its clarity, its brightness, and its purity from the turbidity of desire and the pollution of the commanding soul, and the reflection of the light of the subtlety to it. He likened the holy subtlety, bright in the heart, to the piercing lamp. Imam Ahmad brought out in his Musnad from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Hearts are four: a heart that is better, in it is like the lamp that glows, and in it..." The better heart is the heart of the believer, his lamp is in it, his light... the Hadith. He likened the essence of the Qur'an to the blessed tree for the stability of its root, the branching of its branches, and its leading to fruits that have no end. Allah the Exalted said: (A good word is like a good tree, its root is stable and its branch is in the heaven, it brings forth its fruit every time by the permission of its Lord). The Sunnah-reviver narrated from al-Hasan and Ibn Zayd: "The blessed tree is the tree of revelation." (Its oil would almost glow): i.e., the argument of the Qur'an almost becomes clear even if it is not read. He likened what the light of his noble heart, the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, seeks aid from of the Qur'an, and the beginning of its strengthening from it, to pure oil. Allah the Exalted said: (And likewise We have revealed to you a spirit from Our command. You did not know what the Book was nor the faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will from Our servants). Just as He, the Exalted, made the Qur'an the cause of its burning from it in His, the Exalted, saying: (Burning from a blessed tree), He made its light sought from the reflection of the light of the subtlety to it in His, the Exalted, saying: (Even if no fire touched it).

The meaning, upon what was mentioned in the eye of the soul, is: the secret of the Qur'an almost appears to the creation before the call of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. In it is a trace from the meaning of his saying: "The glass became thin, and the wine became thin, so they resembled each other and the matter became confusing; as if there is wine and no cup, and as if there is a cup and no wine." Among it is the description of the tree by being "neither of the east nor of the west." From Ibn Abbas: the simile of his heart, peace and blessings be upon him, to the brilliant star, and that the blessed tree is Ibrahim, peace be upon him. The meaning of "neither of the east nor of the west" is that he is not a Christian, so he prays towards the East, nor a Jew, so he prays towards the West. The pure oil is the religion of Ibrahim, peace be upon him. It is sometimes said upon dividing the simile, but upon another path, he likened the Qur'an to the lamp upon what preceded, and his noble, pure self, peace and blessings be upon him, to the tree for its being grown from the land of religion, its branches branching to the heaven of faith, its fruits hanging to the space of sincerity and excellence, and that is for its uprightness by the requirement of His, the Exalted, saying: (So be upright as you have been commanded), not leaning to the two sides of excess and deficiency. That is the meaning of His, the Exalted, saying: (Neither of the east nor of the west). What is purified from those fruits after the complete clearing for preparation and acceptance of effects is likened to pure oil for the abundance of the strength of its preparedness for illumination for the oiliness accepting ignition. Then the olive tree was specified because the core of its fruit is the oil with which lamps are ignited. This oil was specified for the increase of its brightness with the scarcity of smoke. (Its oil would almost glow): the preparedness of him, the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, for its clarity and purity, almost glows even if the light of the Qur'an did not touch it. al-Baghawi narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi: "The beauties of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, almost appear to the people before it was revealed to him." Ibn Rawahah said: "If there were not clear signs in him / his immediacy would have informed you of his news." In the truths of al-Sulami: "The likeness of His light in His sincere servant: the niche is the heart, the lamp is the light which He cast into it, and knowledge glows in the heart of the knower by the light of success. Burning from a blessed tree: it glows upon a blessed person; the lights of his inner being are made clear upon the manners of his outer being and the goodness of his dealing. Olive: neither of the east nor of the west: a pure jewel, it has no share in the world nor in the hereafter, due to its specification by the allegiance of the Mighty, the Forgiving, and its uniqueness by the One, the Compeller," and so on.

Some made the simile from the imaginary compound, based on the fact that the intent of "light" which is the object of the simile is guidance insofar as it is veiled by the darknesses of people's conjectures and fancies. It would have been apparent upon this the entry of the kaf upon the lamp rather than the niche encompassing it. From here it was said that there is an inversion in the verse. Some directed the entry of it upon the niche by the fact that the encompassing is prior to the encompassed in the view of the eye, so it was prioritized in wording, and the kaf was entered upon it in consideration of that. It is said that it is upon this also a divided simile, because he likened guidance to the lamp and ignorances to darknesses which it necessitated, and it is as you see.

Among the people are those who made the simile divided, but built his speech upon what the philosophers founded. He made the "light" which is the object of the simile what Allah the Exalted granted His servants of the five perceiving powers, the ordered ones, upon which livelihood is attached. They are the sensitive power, i.e., the common sense which perceives perceptibles by the spies of the five outward senses; and the imaginative power which preserves the images of those perceptibles to display them to the intellectual power whenever it willed; and the intellectual power which perceives universal realities; and the thinking power which takes intellectual knowledges and composes them in a way by which knowledge of the unknown is obtained; and the holy power which is specific to prophets and saints, and in which the signs of the unseen and the secrets of the kingdom become manifest. He made what is in the space of the metaphor an expression of matters, with each of which one of these five was likened. He said: "The sensitive power was likened to the niche in that its place is a cavity in the front of the brain like the alcove in which the outward senses place what it senses, and by that it glows. The imaginative power was likened to the glass in that it accepts perceived images from the sides as the glass accepts sensory lights from the sides, and in that it fixes intellectual lights and preserves them as the glass preserves sensory lights, and in that it is illuminated by what is encompassing it of intelligibles. The intellectual power was likened to the lamp for its illumination by perceptions and knowledges. The thinking power was likened to the blessed tree in that it leads to many results which are in the place of the fruits of the tree." He considered "olive" because it has a virtue over all other trees in that the core of its fruit is the oil which has many benefits, among them that it is the matter of lamps and sensory lights, and it has among all other oils the property of increased brightness and scarcity of smoke. He considered the description "neither of the east nor of the west" in the side of the object of the simile in that the thinking power is abstracted from physical consequences, or in that its benefit is not specific to the side of images nor to the side of meanings. The holy power was likened to the oil which almost glows without fire touching it, in that for the perfection of its clarity and the intensity of its preparedness, it does not need teaching or thinking.

He was countered that the right of the noble order upon this is to say: "The likeness of His light is like a niche, a glass, a lamp, a blessed tree, an olive, and oil that almost glows even if no fire touched it," until it benefits each one with each one. The answer is that when each of these senses takes what it perceives from what precedes it, just as the contained takes from its container, He, the Exalted, indicated that by the instrument of containment, as an indication of the wonder of His, the Exalted, creation and His, the Exalted, wisdom.

It is permitted that the intent is the simile of the "light" intended by it the intellectual power of the soul with its levels to that, and its levels are four:

1. That the soul be void of all necessary and theoretical knowledges, prepared for them as in the beginning of childhood. The intellectual power in this level is called the "material intellect" because it is like prime matter in that it is in itself void of all images, accepting them.
2. That it uses its instruments, i.e., the senses absolutely, so primary knowledges are obtained for it and it is prepared for the acquisition of theoretical knowledges. The mentioned power in this level is called "intellect by habit" for the obtaining of the habit of transition to theories for it due to those primaries.
3. That the theories become stored with it and it obtains the habit of summoning them whenever it willed without the burden of new acquisition. That power in this level is called "intellect" for the obtaining of those knowledges for it by power close to act.
4. That it orders primary knowledges and perceives theoretical knowledges, witnessing them in act. That power in this level is called "acquired intellect" for its acquisition from the active intellect. He likened the power in the first level to the niche, void in the beginning of the matter of sensory lights, prepared for illumination by them; and in the second level to the glass, glittering in itself, accepting the lights overflowing upon it from the external luminous object; and in the third level to the lamp whose wick was ignited, saturated from the oil; and in the fourth level to the multiplied light signaled by His, the Exalted, saying: (Light upon light). Sheikh Ibn Sina, after clarifying the levels, carried the items of the Revelation upon them and verified in the Muhamakat (Trial of Arguments) the aspect of order in them, where he made the glass in the niche and the lamp in the glass by the fact that there is absolute preparedness as in the first level, preparedness of acquisition as in the second level, and preparedness of summoning as in the third level. There is no doubt that the preparedness of acquisition is by the absolute preparedness, and the preparedness of summoning is by the preparedness of acquisition. Thus, the glass which is an expression of the intellect by habit is as if it were in the niche which is an expression of the material intellect; and the lamp, which is the intellect in act, is in the glass which is the intellect by habit, because it is only obtained by consideration of the obtaining of the intellect first. Since the intellect by habit only exits from power to act, either by intuition or by the holy power, it was signaled to the thought by the olive tree, to intuition by the oil, and to the holy power by "its oil would almost glow." He dispelled what appears of the lack of application of what was mentioned to the noble order because he described the tree in it with the attributes you heard, and these are differing matters; it is not permissible to describe one of them by the other, for the olive tree is one thing, so if it ascends in its stages, oil is obtained for it; if it ascends, it almost glows. Likewise, acquisition is a psychic power which is thought, so if it ascends, it becomes intuition, then holy power. So although they are differing, they return to one thing like the tree. He mentioned that His, the Exalted, saying: (Neither of the east nor of the west) is a sign that it is not from the world of sense which is not devoid of one of the two matters. It is not hidden to you that this, with its artificiality and its building upon what was founded by the philosophers who are in blindness from the light of the religious law—may Allah the Exalted grant success to whom said about them: "I have cut off brotherhood from a group who have in them a sickness / from the book of al-Shifa, so they died upon the religion of Aristotle / and we lived upon the sunnah of the Chosen One"—does not suit the place nor does the sides of the speech organize with it. In it is what requires that His, the Exalted, saying: (Light upon light) is included in the simile, and there is disagreement. Then know that it is known by the aid of what we mentioned the state of the simile upon all sayings in the intent by Light. Perhaps what we mentioned in it is more complete in light and more intense in manifestation, and Allah the Exalted is more knowing of the realities of matters.

(And he to whom Allah has not made a light, for him there is no light) (Allah guides to His light): i.e., He, the Exalted, guides with a special guidance leading to the intended inevitably to that multiplied light, great of status. Manifesting it in the place of the pronoun is for the increase of its confirmation and the emphasis of its essential grandiosity by its additive grandiosity arising from its attribution to His pronoun, He is exalted, whom He wills: His guidance from His servants, by enabling them, He the Exalted, to understand His existence, by the indication of intellectual and revealed proofs which He illuminated the heavens and the earth with, in a way they benefit from, or by enabling them to understand what is in the Qur'an of the proofs of its truthfulness and its being from His presence, He the Exalted, of the miraculous and the informing of the unseen and other necessities of faith. In it are other possibilities according to what is in "Light" of the sayings, and whatever it may be, in it is an alarm that the foundation of this guidance and its substance is not except by His, the Exalted, will, and that manifesting the causes without it is far from reaching the intended: "If success were not an aid to the seeker of the way of guidance, his goals would tire him."

(And Allah strikes the similes for the people): in the fold of guidance as their state requires, for striking the simile has a great entry in the chapter of guidance, for it is bringing out the intelligible in the form of the perceptible and picturing the far-off meanings in the form of the familiar. Therefore, He, Majestic be His Praise, likened the intended by it—what encompasses the Qur'an or the clear Qur'an only—to the light of the niche. Manifesting the Majestic Name in the place of the pronoun is, upon what is in Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, to alarm to the difference of what was attributed to Him, the Exalted, of special guidance, and striking the similes which is from the category of general guidance, as the hanging of the first to whom He wills and the second to the people all manifests.

(And Allah is of all things Knowing) Whether intelligible or perceptible, manifest or hidden. From His decree is that His, the Exalted, will attaches to the guidance of whom it suits and deserves of the people rather than others for his opposition to the wisdom which is the foundation of creation and legislation, and that His, the Exalted, general guidance is a cause for differing arts and methods as their states require and the proof for Him, the Exalted, against them is established. The sentence is an appended objection confirming what preceded it. It is said it was brought for the promise of whom contemplated the similes and the threat of whom did not care for them. It is said for the explanation that the benefit of striking the similes which is clarification is only for the people, and it is not strong. Manifesting the Majestic Name is to emphasize the independence of the sentence and the signaling to the cause of the ruling and what was mentioned by it, negation of the difference of the state of the ruled-upon in essence and attachment.