It is recited: "He calls," with the letter yā and the letter nūn. And "every people is called," in the passive form. And al-Hasan recited: "He calls every people," by changing the alif to a wāw in the dialect of those who say: "af‘ū." And the adverbial phrase is in the accusative case by implying "mention."

And it may be said: It is a marker of the plural, as in "And they concealed their private conversation, those who wronged," and the nominative is implied as in: "is called," and the nūn is not mentioned, indicating a lack of concern for it, because it is not a pronoun; it is only a marker of "by their leader" from whom they followed, whether a prophet, or a leader in religion, or a book, or a religion.

[Muhammad said: "By their leader means by whom they followed, whether a prophet or a book or a religion... etc." Ahmad said: "Indeed, he has innovated a novelty in both wording and meaning. For the plural of 'mother' is 'mothers.' As for the mention of Jesus, peace be upon him, regarding the mothers of creation to be reminded of his mother, it necessitates that the creation of Jesus without a father is a distinction in his status, and that is contrary to reality, for his creation without a father was a sign for him, and an honor in his right, and Allah knows best.]

It is said: O followers of so-and-so, O people of such a religion and such a book. And it is said: by the book of their deeds, so it is said: O companions of the book of good, and O companions of the book of evil. And in al-Hasan's recitation: by their book. Among the innovations of interpretations is that the leader gathered the mother, and that people will be called on the Day of Resurrection by their mothers, and that the wisdom in calling by mothers rather than fathers is to honor the right of Jesus, peace be upon him, and to show the honor of al-Hasan and al-Husayn, and that the children of fornication should not be disgraced. And I wonder which is more innovative? Is it the correctness of his wording or the beauty of his wisdom?

So whoever is given his book in his right hand, those are the ones who will read their books. It is said those, because the one who is given is in the plural sense.

If you say: Why were the companions of the right specified with reading their book? As if the companions of the left do not read their book. I say: Yes, but when they see what is in their book, they are seized by what seizes the one called to account for his crimes, and the acknowledgment of his faults. As for the punishment and revenge against him, it is from shame, embarrassment, and retreat, and the stuttering of the tongue, and the inability to articulate the letters of speech, and the failure to make a fair statement, so their reading is as if it is not reading at all. As for the companions of the right, their matter is the opposite; indeed, they read their book in the best and clearest reading, and they do not suffice with their reading alone until the reader says to the people of the gathering: "Here, read my book!" And they are not wronged even to the extent of a thread, nor is their reward diminished in the slightest, as in His saying: "And they are not wronged at all," so they do not fear injustice or deprivation.