Allah gathered for him the two responses together in His saying: "No! Go both of you". This is because he repelled their affliction, and He promised him protection by restraining him from fear. He sought assistance from his brother, and He answered him by saying: "Go!" That is, go you and the one you requested, which is Harun. If you say: What is the reason for the conjunction of the saying "Go"? I say: It is connected to the action indicated by "No!" as if it were said: Restrain yourself, O Musa, from what you think, so go you and Harun. And His saying: "With you are listeners" is a metaphorical expression. He means: I am for both of you and for your enemy like a supporter who aids you against him when he is present and listens to what transpires between you and him. So He will support you, overpower you, and break his strength against you and humble him. It is possible that they are two subjects because of the conjunction, or "listeners" could be a settled term, and "with you" could be superfluous. If you say: Why did you make "listeners" a condition for "with you" in being metaphorical, while Allah, the Exalted, is truly described as Hearing and Listener? I say: However, He is not described as "listener" in the literal sense, because listening is akin to paying attention, and listening is to hearing as seeing is to sight. From this is His saying: "Say: It has been revealed to me that a group of the jinn listened and said: Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Qur'an." And it is said: He listened to his speech, and he heard his speech, meaning: he paid attention to him and perceived it with the sense of hearing. From this is his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: "Whoever listens to the speech of a people while they dislike it, molten lead will be poured into his ears." If you say: Why did the Messenger not dualize as he did in his saying: "Indeed, we are the Messengers of your Lord"? I say: The Messenger can mean the one sent and can mean the message, so he made it in the sense of the one sent, thus it was necessary to dualize it. He made it here in the sense of the message, so it was permissible to treat it equally—when described—between the singular and the dual and the plural, as is done with adjectives derived from sources, such as fasting and visiting. He said: "Did he send me to it and the best of the messengers informed them of the news." The witness in the Messenger meaning the message is his saying: "The informers have lied about what I spoke in their presence..."

For many, he is a companion of honor. And the dancers: the mounts that are moving to Mina during the pilgrimage, amidst the crowd: that is, among the people. And the rope is the one that is extended in her neck by which she is led. And the whisperer: the one who speaks well and embellishes it, mixing truth with falsehood, and distorting the words from their places. And 'ma' is a negation, meaning: I did not utter a secret to them, nor did I send them to anyone with a messenger, that is, with a message; it is originally a source. It may refer to the one who is sent, which is apparent in the narration, 'nor did I correspond with them with a messenger,' meaning I did not speak to them in secret nor did I send a messenger to them with it. This narration is more suitable for the contrast. And it could be that I sent them means I sent to them, and the original is: O honor, and it is softened by omitting the 'ta', meaning: in that you understand. Or for the sake of you understanding, with advice, meaning: did the whisperers come to you with advice, or with ropes: the plural of rope with a kasra: and it is the great calamity, and there is no calamity greater than lying. It is permissible to use the singular, because their ruling supports each other and their agreement on one law, and their unity for that and for the brothers was one ruling, as if they were one messenger. Or it is meant that each one of us is to send, meaning: to send, as the messenger contains the meaning of sending. And you say: I sent to you to do such and such, for in sending is a meaning of saying, as in calling and writing and the like. And the meaning of this sending is: the release and letting go, as you say: let the falcon go, meaning: let them go with us to Palestine, which was their dwelling. It is narrated that they went to the gate of Pharaoh, and they were not permitted for a year, until the doorkeeper said: There is a person here who claims to be the messenger of the Lord of the worlds. He said: Let him in, perhaps we will laugh at him. So they delivered the message to him, and Moses recognized him and said: Did we not raise you? They went to Pharaoh and said that to him, because it is known and not confused. This type of abbreviation is common in the revelation. Al-Walid: the boy due to his closeness to birth. And in a narration from Abu Amr: from your age, with a sukoon on the 'm', meaning: years; it was said: He stayed with them for thirty years. And it was said: He struck the Egyptian when he was twelve years old, and he fled from them afterward, and Allah knows best about the truth of that. And from Al-Shabi: your action with a kasra, meaning the killing of the Egyptian, because he killed him with a strike, which is a form of killing. As for the act, it is because it was one strike. He counted his favor upon him from his upbringing and reaching the age of men, and reproached him for what occurred at his hands from killing his baker, and magnified that and its horror. Mahmoud said: 'He counted his favor upon him and reproached him for what occurred at his hands from killing his baker and its horror upon him by saying: And you did your deed.' Ahmad said: The aspect of magnifying upon him from that is that in bringing it up in an ambiguous manner, it indicates that its horror is something that can only be expressed by allusion. An example of this in the grandeur inferred from ambiguity is His saying: 'And the sea covered them what covered them,' when it covers the lote tree what it covers, 'and He revealed to His servant what He revealed.' And similar to this is abundant; and Allah knows best. And the meaning of 'And you did your deed that you did while you were among the disbelievers' may be a state, meaning: you killed him while you were among the disbelievers of My favor. Or you were at that time among those who deny them now, and you have slandered him or were ignorant of his matter, for he was living among them with caution, for indeed Allah, glorified and exalted is He, protects whoever wants to inquire from every major sin and from some minor ones, so what about disbelief?

And it is permissible that his saying, "And you are among the disbelievers," is a judgment upon him that he is among those who are ungrateful for blessings. Whoever has the habit of being ungrateful for blessings would not find it strange to kill the special ones among those who have bestowed upon him. Or it could mean that he is among those who disbelieve in Pharaoh and his divinity. Or among those who used to disbelieve in their religion, for they had gods whom they worshipped. This is supported by His saying, "And he will leave you and your gods." It has also been recited as "your deity." Moses responded to him by saying that this act was indeed a failure on his part and that he is among the misguided, meaning the ignorant. The reading of Ibn Mas'ud: "among the ignorant," clarifies this. The meaning is: among those who commit acts of ignorance and folly. As Joseph said to his brothers, "Did you not know what you did to Joseph and his brother when you were ignorant?" Or the mistaken ones, like one who kills accidentally without intending to kill. Or those who stray from the right path. Or the forgetful ones, as in His saying, "So that one of them may remind the other." Pharaoh lied and denied the description of disbelief from himself, and he cleared himself of blame by placing the misguided in the position of the disbelievers. He elevated the status of one who was chosen for prophethood above that description, and then he returned to his gratitude towards him for his upbringing. He invalidated it from its origin and uprooted it from its essence. And he refused to call his blessing anything but a curse. Where he clarified that the reality of his blessing upon him was the enslavement of the Children of Israel, for their enslavement and the intention to kill their sons is the reason for his attainment of that and his upbringing. It is as if he was bestowing upon him the enslavement of his people when it was realized, and their enslavement means their humiliation and taking them as slaves. It is said: I enslaved the man and made him a slave if I took him as a servant. He said: "On what basis do my people worship me while there are many camels among them as they wish and many slaves?" The term "on what basis" is an interrogative expression of denial regarding the reason, meaning: for what reason. And I enslaved the man and made him a slave if I took him as a servant. The term "camels" is the plural of camel, which applies to both male and female camels. The term "slave" is pluralized as "slaves" in both the broken and the sound plural forms. He says: For what reason do they take me as a slave, while the fact is that there are many camels and slaves because of me, so they should take from them as they wish: a replacement for the camels or in place of the source for the abundance, indicating the multitude. In this situation, there is mockery of them and a sign of their foolishness. And it is permissible that the meaning is: while some of them are like camels, and some of them are slaves, so they should suffice with some of them instead of me. And it is said that the specification in this situation is because it is what led them to arrogance towards him.

If you say: If it is both a response and a recompense, and the speech was a response to Pharaoh, how did it become a recompense? I say: Pharaoh's saying, "And you did your deed," contains the meaning: You have repaid my blessing with what you have done. Moses said to him: Yes, I did it as a recompense for you, submitting to his words, for his blessing was with him worthy of being repaid with such a recompense.

If you say: Why is the pronoun in "among you" and "your fear" plural, while it is singular in "I wished" and "I worshipped"? I say: Fear and fleeing were not from him alone, but from him and his council who conspired to kill him, as indicated by his saying, "Indeed, the council is conspiring against you to kill you." As for the bestowal, it was solely from him, as well as the enslavement. If you say: What does "that" refer to, and what is the grammatical status of "that you enslaved"? I say: That refers to a vile and ambiguous trait, which is not known except by its interpretation. The grammatical status of "that you enslaved" is nominative, an appositive to that. An example of this is His saying, "And We decreed to him that the end of these people is cut off." The meaning is: Your enslavement of the Children of Israel is a blessing you bestow upon me. And Al-Zajjaj said: It is permissible that "that" is in the accusative case, meaning: It has become a blessing upon me because you enslaved the Children of Israel, meaning: If you had not done that, my family would have taken care of me and would not have thrown me into the river.