When he was commanded to go to Pharaoh, the tyrant, may Allah curse him, he knew that he was tasked with a great matter and a serious affair that required the endurance of what only a strong-hearted person can bear. He asked his Lord to expand his chest and make his heart spacious, and to make him gentle and capable of bearing whatever hardships might come to him, which would take away the patience of the patient with beautiful patience and good steadfastness. He also asked that his matter, which is the vicegerency of Allah on His earth, and what accompanies it of engaging in great affairs and enduring significant trials, be made easy for him. If you say: What is the benefit of my saying, 'Expand for me my chest and make my matter easy'? The speech would be sufficient without it. I say: The speech is initially ambiguous, so it was said: 'Expand for me' and 'make easy for me', thus it is known that there is something to be expanded and made easy. Then it was clarified and the ambiguity was removed by mentioning them both, which was more emphatic for the request of expansion and ease for his chest and matter than if he had said: 'Expand my chest and make my matter easy' in a simple explanation, because that would be a repetition of the same meaning from the two paths of generality and detail. Ibn Abbas said: He had a speech impediment. This is due to the narration of the story of the ember. It is reported that Moses was playing in front of Pharaoh with a stick, and he struck his head with it, and Pharaoh became angry and intended to kill him. His wife said to him: 'He is a child who does not understand; test him if you wish.' She brought two basins, one with embers and the other with jewels. Moses reached for the jewels, and Gabriel turned it into embers, so he put an ember in his mouth and his tongue was burned. It is narrated that his hand was burned, and Pharaoh exerted effort in treating it, but it did not heal. When he called him, he said: 'To which Lord do you call me?' He said: 'To the One who healed my hand, and I am unable to do so.' Some said: His hand did not heal so that he would not eat from the same dish as Pharaoh, thus a bond of sharing food would not be established between them. There is a difference regarding the complete removal of the impediment; it is said that some of it was removed while some remained, due to Allah's saying: 'And my brother Aaron, he is more eloquent than me in speech,' and His saying: 'And he can hardly express himself.' It is reported that Al-Husayn ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with them, had a speech impediment. The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'He inherited it from his uncle Moses.' It is said that it was completely removed due to Allah's saying: 'You have been granted your request, O Moses.' In the indefinite mention of the impediment—though it does not say 'the impediment of my tongue'—indicates that he sought the removal of some of it in order to be understood well, and he did not seek complete eloquence. 'From my tongue' is a description of the impediment, as if it were said: 'An impediment from the impediments of my tongue.'

The minister is from [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: al-wazr], because he bears the burden for the king or his affairs. Or it is from [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: al-wazr], meaning refuge. This is indicated by the correct sources. (A) Because the king relies on his opinion and turns to him for his matters. Or it is from [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: al-mu'azara], which means assistance. Al-Asma'i said: The correct form was [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: azira], but the hamzah was changed to a waw. The reason for this change is that the form [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: fa'ila] has come in the meaning of [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: maf'ala] in a suitable manner, as they say: [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: 'ashir], [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: jalis], [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: qaid], [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: khilil], [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: sadiq], and [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: nadim]. So when it was changed in his brother, it was changed in it as well. Carrying something based on its counterpart is not uncommon, and looking at [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: yuwazir] and its sisters, and to [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: al-muwazara]. [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: Waziran] and [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: Harun] are the objects of the saying, 'Make.' The second of them is placed before the first out of concern for the matter of ministry. Or [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: li wa ziran] are its two objects, and [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: Harun] is an appositive for the minister. And [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: akhi] in both cases is a substitute for [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: Harun], and if it is made another appositive, it is permissible and good.

They all read: 'Strengthen and join him in the supplication.' And Ibn 'Amir alone: 'Strengthen and join him,' in the response.

And in the manuscript of Ibn Mas'ud: 'My brother and strengthen.' And from Abu Ibn Kab: 'Join him in my affair, and strengthen my back.'

It is permissible for those who read in the imperative form to make [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: akhi] nominative as a subject: 'And strengthen him' is its predicate, and one can stop at [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: Harun]. The [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: al-azr] is strength. And [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: azra] means to strengthen him, that is: make him my partner in the message so that we may cooperate in Your worship and remembrance, for cooperation—because it stirs desires—multiplies goodness and increases it. 'Indeed, You are All-Aware of our conditions and that mutual support is what rectifies us, and that Harun is indeed a good helper and supporter for my side, as he is older than me in age and more eloquent in speech.'