Indeed, We took their covenant regarding monotheism and sent to them messengers to inform them of what they bring and what they leave in their religion. Whenever a messenger comes to them, it is a conditional sentence that serves as a description for 'messengers', and the reference is omitted, meaning a messenger from them with what their souls do not desire, which contradicts their desires and opposes their appetites from the hardships of obligation and adherence to the laws. If you say: Where is the answer to the condition? [Mahrud said: 'If you say where is the answer to the condition... etc.'] Ahmad said: Among the indications of the omitted answer is that it appeared clearly in another verse, which is the twin of this, His saying: (So whenever a messenger comes to you with what your souls do not desire, you become arrogant; and a group you deny and a group you kill.) Thus, His saying: (You become arrogant) serves as the answer, and then He explained their arrogance and their actions towards the prophets by killing some and denying others. If Al-Zamakhshari had posited here the omitted answer like what is stated in the counterpart of the verse, he would have said: And We sent to them messengers whenever a messenger came to them with what their souls do not desire, they became arrogant, it would have been more appropriate for the indication of such a statement. Indeed, His saying: (A group denied and a group killed) substitutes for the answer, because a single messenger cannot be two groups, and it is not proper to say: If you honored my brother, did you honor your brother? I said: It is omitted, indicated by His saying: (A group denied and a group killed), as if it were said: Whenever a messenger from them came, they opposed him. And His saying: (A group denied) is an answer that is initiated for one who says: How did they treat their messengers? If you say: Why was one of the two actions mentioned in the past tense? [[He returned to his words. He said: 'If you say why was one of the two actions mentioned in the past tense... etc.'] Ahmad said: Or it could be in the present tense in reality, because they revolved around the killing of Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him. This view has been mentioned in the counterpart of this verse in Al-Baqarah. The aspect of the necessity of the present tense form to evoke it without the past tense has been previously mentioned, exemplified by His saying: (Did you not see that Allah sent down water from the sky, and the earth becomes green?) He shifted from 'so it became' to 'and it becomes', illustrating the state and bringing it to mind in the listener's mind. Among them: 'Indeed, I met the ghoul moving... because of something like a newspaper, it was clear. So I took it and struck it, and it fell... slain by the hands and for the neighbors.' And many similar examples, and Allah knows best.]] And the other is in the present tense? I said: 'They are said to be killing' to narrate the past state, in horror of the killing and bringing to mind that heinous state for astonishment. It is read: 'that there be not', in the accusative case as apparent. And in the nominative case on 'that' being the lightened form of the heavy, its origin being: 'that there not be a trial', so 'that' was lightened and the pronoun of the matter was omitted.