If it is right for it to enter upon actions without names, then there must be an action after it in 'If you were to own', and its estimation is 'if you owned'. So he implied ownership with an implication based on the condition of explanation. He replaced the attached pronoun, which is the 'waw' (و), with a separate pronoun, which is 'you', due to the dropping of what is connected to it in the wording. So 'you' are the subject of the implied action, and 'own' is its explanation! This is the aspect that the science of grammar necessitates. As for what the science of rhetoric necessitates, it is that 'you own' indicates specificity, and that people are the ones specifically characterized by extreme stinginess. This is similar to the saying of Hatim: 'If she with bracelets struck me'. And the saying of Al-Mutalammis: 'And if others than my maternal uncles desired to diminish me... I would brand them above the noses with a mark.' And was I anything but like one who cut off his hand... with another hand that advanced upon it. For Al-Mutalammis is a maternal uncle of Tarafa ibn al-Abd, and 'if' is one of the conditional particles. So whenever there is an action within its scope, it is more deserving of it. Thus, 'others than my brothers' is the subject of an omitted phrase that is explained by what is mentioned, meaning: 'if others than my brothers desired'. It is narrated: 'my maternal uncles', and 'to diminish me' means: my oppression, if I branded them with humiliation and a mark appeared, as if it were above the noses, and it is specified because it does not remain hidden. The mark is the tool for branding with fire, and the intended meaning is its effect, which is the mark. 'And was I': is an interrogative of denial, meaning: if I were to reward my brothers, I would not be anything but like one who cut off his hand with another hand. The hand is mentioned in both masculine and feminine forms, and therefore it is described as having advanced upon the other hand and transgressed against it, and it is described as another. The comparison between the two hands supports the narration of 'my brothers' with the 'n' (ن). And this is because the first action was dropped due to the explanation, and the speech appeared in the form of a subject and a predicate. And the mercy of Allah: His provision and all His blessings upon His creation, and indeed this description of stinginess has reached a limit that imagination cannot reach. It is said: it is for the people of Mecca who proposed what they proposed of springs and rivers and others, and that if they owned the treasures of provisions, they would withhold them miserly and stingily. If you say: is it possible to estimate 'if you had withheld' as an object? I say: no, because its meaning is: you would have been stingy, from your saying to the stingy: 'withholder'.