This is from the subtleties of speech, and the nuances of this type are not penetrated except by the minds trained among the scholars of meanings. The saying regarding it is that the intention of Ibrahim, blessings of Allah be upon him, was not to attribute the action that occurred from him to the idol. Rather, he intended to establish it for himself and affirm it in a manner of insinuation that would achieve his purpose of compelling them with evidence and rebuking them. This is similar to when your friend says to you, having written a book in elegant handwriting while you are famous for your beautiful script: 'Did you write this?' and your friend is illiterate, unable to write except for a poor scrawl. If you said to him: 'No, you wrote it,' your intention with this response is to affirm it for him while mocking him, not to deny it from you and attribute it to the illiterate or the scrawler. This is because affirming it—while the matter is between you two, with one of you being incapable—would be mocking him and affirming it for the capable one. One might say: Those idols angered him when he saw them lined up in order, and the anger of their chief was greater and more intense when he saw the increased reverence they had for him. Thus, the action was attributed to him because he was the one who caused their contempt and shattered them. An action can be attributed to its direct doer, as well as to the one who incited it. It is also possible that it is a narration of what leads to justifying their doctrine, as if he said to them: 'What do you deny that their chief could do it?' For it is a right of one who is worshipped and claimed to be a god to be capable of this and even more. It is narrated that he said: 'Their chief did this out of anger that these smaller ones are worshipped alongside him, while he is greater than them.' And Muhammad ibn al-Samiqah read: 'Their chief did this,' meaning: 'Perhaps it was him,' that is, 'perhaps the doer is their chief.'