He follows the prohibition against the worship of idols and describes them as neither beneficial nor harmful. Indeed, Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, is the harmful and the beneficial. If He afflicts you with harm, no one can remove it except Him alone, without anyone else. So how about the inanimate objects that have no awareness? Likewise, if He intends good for you, no one can repel what He intends for you of His grace and kindness. So how about the idols? He is therefore more deserving of being worshipped than they are. This is clearer than His saying: 'If Allah intends for me harm, can they remove His harm? Or if He intends for me mercy, can they hold back His mercy?' If you say: Why did He mention 'affliction' in one instance and 'intention' in the other? I say: It is as if He wanted to mention both matters: intention and affliction in each of harm and good. And that there is no repeller of what He intends from either of them, nor is there a remover of what befalls from either of them. So He summarized the speech by mentioning 'affliction,' which is the affliction in one instance, and 'intention' in the other, to indicate by what He mentioned what He left out. He has indeed mentioned the affliction of good in His saying: 'He afflicts with it whom He wills of His servants,' and the intended will is the will of what is beneficial.