And he is constricted and he is released, in the nominative because they are conjoined to the news of 'Indeed,' and in the accusative for being conjoined to the relative of 'that.'

And the difference between them in meaning is that the nominative indicates that there are three causes: fear of denial, constriction of the chest, and the inability to release the tongue. The accusative indicates that his fear is related to these three. If you say: In the accusative, the fear is linked to the three matters, and in totality, it negates the release of the tongue. The reality of fear is merely a distress that befalls a person due to an impending matter, and that was indeed occurring, so how is it permissible to link fear to it? I say: Fear is linked to their denial and to what results from it, which is the constriction of the chest, and the hindrance of the tongue is additional to what was already there, noting that the hindrance that was there has been removed by his call. It is said: A small remnant of it remained.

If you say: Your excuse is refuted by the nominative, because the meaning is: I am fearful, with a constricted chest, and my tongue is not released. I say: It is permissible that this was before the call and its acceptance, and it is permissible that he means the small amount that remained with him, and it is permissible that he was not among those eloquent speakers who were granted fluency of speech and breadth of expression, and Aaron was of that description, so he intended to associate himself with him. This is indicated by Allah's saying: 'And my brother Aaron, he is more eloquent in speech than I.' And the meaning of 'So send to Aaron': Send him Gabriel, and make him a prophet, and support me with him, and strengthen me with him. This is a brief statement. He has elaborated on it in other places, and he has done well in being concise when he said: 'So send to Aaron,' as he came with what includes the meaning of the appointment of a prophet.

An example of brevity in a lengthy matter is Allah's saying: 'So We said: Go to the people who denied Our signs, and We destroyed them with complete destruction,' where he limited the mention to the two ends of the story, its beginning and its end, which are the warning and the destruction, and by mentioning them, he indicated what is the objective of the entire lengthy story, which is that they are a people who denied the signs of Allah. So Allah intended to establish proof against them, so He sent them two messengers, and they denied both of them, so He destroyed them.

If you say: How could it be permissible for Moses, peace be upon him, that Allah commands him with a command and he does not accept it with hearing and obedience without hesitation and clinging to excuses, while he knew that Allah was behind him? I say: He complied and accepted, but he requested from his Lord that He support him with his brother so that they may cooperate in executing His command and delivering His message. So he prepared an excuse before his request for help, and then he requested after that. And preparing an excuse in seeking assistance in executing the command is not a hesitation in complying with the command, nor an excuse in it. And the request for help is sufficient evidence of acceptance, not of making excuses.