It means that good deeds and bad deeds are different in themselves. So take the good deed that is better than its counterpart—if two good deeds confront you—and repel with it the bad deed that comes to you from some of your enemies. An example of this is: a man wrongs you. The good deed is to forgive him, and the one that is better is to do good to him in place of his wrongdoing towards you. For instance, if he speaks ill of you, you praise him, and if he kills your child, you ransom his child from the hands of his enemy. If you do that, your enemy will turn into a close friend, treating you with affection. Then he said: And no one embodies this character or disposition of repaying evil with good except the people of patience, or a good man who is granted a great share of goodness. If you say: Why not say, 'Repel with what is better'? I say: It is as if a speaker asked: 'What should I do?' It was said: 'Repel with what is better.' And it was said that there is no addition. The meaning is: And good deeds and bad deeds are not equal. If you say: Then the analogy based on this interpretation would be to say: 'Repel with what is good.' I say: Yes, but the phrase 'what is better' is placed in the place of 'what is good' to be more emphatic in repelling with good deeds, because whoever repels with what is good finds it easier to repel with what is less than it. And from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father: 'What is better' refers to patience in anger, forbearance in ignorance, and forgiveness in wrongdoing, and he interpreted 'share' as reward. And from Al-Hasan, may Allah have mercy on him: By Allah, no share is greater than Paradise. It is said that this was revealed concerning Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, who was an enemy who harmed the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and he became a close friend.