Tafsir of Al-`Ankabut 29:16

(And Ibrahim) is in the accusative case due to an implied udhkur (mention/remember), coordinated with what preceded it—the coordination of a narrative with a narrative; thus, there is no harm in their difference regarding whether they are declarative or performative.

(Idh) in the words of the Almighty: (when he said to his people) is an apposition of inclusion (badal ishtimal) for it, as times include what takes place within them. Al-Zamakhshari and Ibn Atiyyah permitted this, but Abu Hayyan criticized it, arguing that idh is indeclinable (ghayr mutasarrif), so it cannot be a direct object, and the function of apposition requires such declension. He then mentioned that if idh is an adverb for the past, it cannot be governed by udhkur because the future cannot occur in the past; thus, one cannot say "Stand yesterday." However, if it is stripped of its past-adverbial nature and made declinable, it is permissible for it to be a direct object and governed by udhkur.

Many have permitted it to be in the accusative case as a coordination to "Nuh" (Nuhan), as if it were said: "And We sent Ibrahim." In that case, idh is an adverb for the sending, and the meaning—according to what has been said—is: "We sent him when his intellect matured, he became capable of reflection and inference, and he ascended from the rank of perfection to the degree of perfecting others, as he engaged in guiding creation to the path of truth." This, according to some researchers, is because the statement mentioned at the time of idh only occurred from him—peace be upon him—after he reached adolescence but before his mission. You know that the words of the Almighty: (And if you deny, then nations before you have denied; and there is not upon the Messenger except the clear conveyance) etc., if they are from his statement—peace be upon him—to his people, act as an explicit text that the recounted statement from him—peace be upon him—occurred after the mission.

In the Sa’di Glosses, it is stated that this is an indication to refute what might be said: "The call occurs after the mission, and what is understood from the verse is its precedence over it." The essence of his argument is that the intent of the call is not what is the result of the mission, but what is the result of intellectual maturity and complete reflection, noting that the verse’s indication of its precedence is not conceded; indeed, there is room for interpretation in the timeline. It is also permissible that the intent is to indicate his haste—peace be upon him—in compliance. Consider this.

Abu al-Baqa and Ibn Atiyyah permitted it to be in the accusative case as a coordination to the object of anjaynahu (We saved him), but it is as you see. What is most consistent with what follows, God willing, from the words of the Almighty: (And to Madyan their brother Shu’ayb), is that the accusative case be by way of coordination to Nuhan.

Abu Hanifah, al-Nakha’i, Abu Ja’far, and Ibrahim recited it in the nominative case (Ibrahimu), based on the estimation: "And among the Messengers is Ibrahim." It is also said the estimation is: "And among what should be mentioned is Ibrahim," or: "And among those whom We saved is Ibrahim." The first [estimation] is the one relied upon, due to what precedes and follows it pointing toward it.

Governed by that omitted [verb] is (when he said to his people: Worship Allah alone and fear Him, lest you associate anything with Him, Glorified is He). (That) i.e., what has been mentioned of worship and piety (is better for you) than anything that contains goodness, or [better] than what you are upon, based on the assumption of goodness therein according to your claim. It is also permissible for khayr (better) to be an adjective rather than a superlative noun (if you know), i.e., [if you know] goodness and evil and distinguish one from the other, or if you know anything at all in any way, for that is sufficient to judge the goodness of what was mentioned regarding worship and piety.