And when he was astonished by his state, which was far from reason, both with himself and with the children of his kind, he denied it, marveling at the fact that he knew that he had nothing in his hand. The outcome is that he is being watched, and his state is controlled to the utmost degree, yet he forgets that. So he said, mentioning the second occurrence of 'Have you seen?' which can only be an interrogative sentence: [﴿Did he not know﴾] meaning that an action will occur for him one day from the days [by which] ﴿that Allah﴾ meaning He is the Most High King ﴿sees﴾ meaning [for Him] the attributes of sight and knowledge absolutely. He knows every known thing and perceives every perceivable thing. Whoever has that is deserving that those whom he sees upon misguidance and leading astray should perish, and he supports whoever obeys his command against all who oppose him. This interrogative denial came in this manner because they acknowledge everything he denied against them (p-167) and it is necessary for them [by what they do] of enmity towards the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, to be deniers of him. This is the very contradiction that is most disgraceful to them. It is possible, and it is better, that the verse be revealed upon the context, and it is said: When the question was about the state of the one who forbids, because the vision is a matter of knowledge and not of sight, the listener longed to know it. The one who forbids has two states: obedience and disobedience. He began with the former due to its nobility over the previous style in the report as a means of astonishment, so he said: 'Have you seen?' meaning inform me 'if the forbidding one is steadfast in his forbidding, firmly established 'upon guidance' meaning complete 'or' he has 'commanded' in that matter or in some matter of the worship of idols and others 'with piety.' And he omitted the answer to the question about this state due to the indication of the answer to the second state upon it, which is: Did he not know that Allah sees all that is correct to be seen? So He forbids it if it is disliked and does not allow it and he will be held accountable for it, so that this forbidding one weighs his actions by what He, glorified and exalted is He, has legislated from rational and textual evidence, and he knows whether it is from what pleases Him to allow it upon him as He allows [all] that pleases Him or displeases Him, so He prevents him from it.

And when he mentioned what could be the condition of the one who forbids from being righteous, he mentioned what could be his condition of corruption. He said, affirming and expressing amazement, reiterating the action to increase the astonishment over the first pattern: "Did you see if he lies?" That is, this forbidding one with the truth at the time of forbidding. And since it does not necessitate from the lying that he turns away, he said: "And he turns away," that is, from the religion by his forbidding. Thus, he was upon misguidance and desires, firmly established in that, such that he does not perform any action except that it is corrupt. "Does he not know that Allah sees?" So he should hold himself accountable for what he has been guided to by Him, glorified and exalted is He, from the proofs. He should know that what he is upon of guidance, if Allah affirms it for him and enables him in it, or misguidance, if He forbids him from it and does not affirm it for him. Just as He did with this one who swore: "I will surely crush the head of this one who prays," and he advanced upon him with his stone, while he was, in his own estimation, fully capable of that. But Allah prevented him from it and turned him away from it, so he returned on his heels, defeated, with cowardice and fear apparent upon him, and other than that which men avoid, and which the noble lions disdain. The connection here with the request of "Did you see?" is not from the dispute because it requires an implication, and the sentences are not implied. Rather, it is from the category of omission for evidence. The omission of being upon misguidance is secondary to the indication of being upon guidance first. And he omitted "Does he not know that Allah sees?" first for the indication of mentioning it last.