If you say: Why did he repeat calling his people? And why did he use 'and' in the third call but not in the second? I say: As for the repetition of the call, it serves as an additional alert for them and a wake-up from the state of negligence. And it indicates that they are his people and his kin, and they are in what leads to their destruction, while he knows the way to their salvation. Advising them is obligatory upon him, so he feels sorrow for them and is gentle with them. He calls upon them in a way that invites them not to accuse him, for their joy is his joy, and their sorrow is his sorrow. They should accept his advice, just as Ibrahim, blessings and peace be upon him, repeated in advising his father: 'O my father.' As for the use of the conjunction 'and', it is because the second is part of a statement that clarifies and explains the general, so it gives the one that is included in it the ruling of preventing the conjunction. However, the third is part of a statement that is not of that status. It is said: He called him to such and such and called him for it, as you say: He guided him to the path and guided him to it. The phrase 'what I have no knowledge of' means regarding his lordship, and the intended meaning of negating knowledge is the negation of the known, as if he said: 'And he associated with Him what is not a deity, and how can what is not a deity be known as a deity?' [Mahamud said: The intended meaning of negating knowledge is the negation of the known, as if he said: 'And he associated with Him what is not a deity, and how can what is not a deity be known as a deity?' Ahmad said: This is akin to 'There is no love that is guided by its beacon,' meaning: There is no beacon for it to be guided by. Al-Zamakhshari's words here are stronger than his words regarding the saying of Pharaoh: 'I do not know for you any god other than me.'