"And those who disbelieved said..."

It has been said: Perhaps those who uttered this were some of the rebels in disbelief among those disbelieving nations whose heinous statements were reported, rather than all of them, such as the people of Shu'ayb and their like. This is why it did not say, "And they said, 'To their messengers: We will surely drive you out of our land, or you must return to our religion.'"

It is also permitted that those meant by this were the authorities and those with influence who possessed the power to expel and to restore. This could also be a reason for moving away from saying "they said" [using the pronoun alone]. The "or" (aw) is for one of the two alternatives, and their intent is that one of the two must certainly occur: either your expulsion or your return [to our religion]. Thus, the subject of the oath is within the scope of the oath-taker. The claim that "or" here carries the meaning of "until" (hatta) or "unless" (illa) is the statement of one who has not examined the matter thoroughly, as noted in al-Bahr regarding what follows it; for that construction does not hold with what was mentioned, as it would in [the expression] "I will surely stick with you until (or or) you pay me my due."

The meaning of "return" (al-'awd) is transformation and transition from one state to another, and it is frequently used with this meaning. Thus, the false assumption is repelled that "return" necessitates that the messengers—far be it from them—were in the religion of disbelief prior to that. It was objected in al-Fara'id that if "return" meant "transformation," it would have been said "to our religion" (ila millatina). Using "in our religion" (fi millatina) implies that it conveys the meaning of "entering," i.e., "you shall enter into our religion." al-Tibi refuted this, stating that the objection only holds if "in our religion" is a connective to the verb; however, if it is made the predicate of the verb—since sara (to become/return) is one of the "sisters of kana"—then the objection does not apply, as in the phrase, "Zayd became in the house." Yes, from what he mentioned, another perspective is understood: making it a metaphor for "you shall enter," rather than an implication, for according to what they established, both meanings are intended in the latter, which does not avert the prohibited outcome. In al-Kashf, it is stated that "in" (fi) is more emphatic than "to" (ila) because it denotes stability and firm establishment, as if they were not satisfied merely with them appearing to be among the people of their religion.

It has been said that the meaning of "returning to their religion" is their silence regarding them and ceasing to demand them to believe, which is as you see. It has also been said that it is upon its immediate, literal meaning, and the address is directed to every messenger and those who believed with him from his people, so they used the plural form over the singular. If the group was present, the matter is clear; otherwise, there is another instance of prioritizing the plural in the address. It is also said that there is no prioritizing of the plural at all, and the address is to the messengers alone, based on their claim that they were among the people of their religion before they proclaimed their call, like the statement of Pharaoh—may he be cursed—to Moses—peace be upon him—: "And you did your deed which you did, and you were of the disbelievers." The discussion on the likes of this has already passed, so recall it.

"Then their Lord inspired to them"—that is, to the messengers, peace be upon them, after what was said to them was said—"the Owner of their command, glory be to Him—'We will surely destroy the wrongdoers.'" That is, the polytheists who have reached the extreme in wrongdoing, and they are those very people who spoke. Ibn 'Atiyyah said: He—glory be to Him—singled out the "wrongdoers" from "those who disbelieved," because it is possible that some of the disbelievers who said that statement might [later] believe; thus, the threat is to destroy those who remained persistent in wrongdoing.

"Inspired" (awha) may be taken in the sense of the act of inspiration, having no object, and "We will surely destroy" being a consequence of an implied verb of saying, i.e., "saying: We will surely destroy." It is also possible that it is treated as a form of "saying" because it is a type of it, with "We will surely destroy" being its object.