And when the estimation was inevitable, as the context guided to it, what you have estimated as a response to the two questions, he built upon it his saying as an addition in reproach, astonishment, and reprimand, questioning the state of this prohibitor, which is contrary to the first state, reiterating the action for clarification of that: ﴿Have you seen﴾ meaning inform me, O listener, and do not rush. ﴿If he denies﴾ meaning this prohibitor commits denial by asserting that the one who prays is upon guidance in the service of his master, who is agreed upon in his leadership. Thus, he was by that committing error, which there is no doubt in being error, and nothing calls to it except guidance.

And when the denier may not abandon his denial, he indicated that the state of this one is contrary to that, so he said: ﴿And he turned away﴾ meaning he assigned his original nature after having dealt with it by turning away from accepting the command of piety. And that turning away is the corruption of the inner self with bad morals arising from denial, and the corruption of the outer self with vile actions arising from denial. The response is omitted, its estimation being: Was not that turning away and denial evil for him? For denial and turning away without evidence is pure evil. So how if the evidence is established against them?