Then, when he strengthened the negation by denying the permissibility of such worship and declaring himself free of it, expressing his aversion to it and its ugliness, and denying that he would worship anything they had worshipped, even for a time, he said:

“Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.”

Rather, you have no part in worshipping what I worship. My disavowal—my complete disavowal and remoteness from what you worship, and my complete nearness to Allah through worshipping Him alone, without partner—does not mean that you have any share in this worship. Rather, in this state too, you do not worship what I worship: neither in the first state nor in the second.

Had he confined his declaration that they had no part in worshipping Allah to the first sentence, it would not have excluded them from that worship in this second state. Thus, he declared their disassociation from the One he worshipped both when making the first, specific disavowal and when making the second, comprehensive and decisive disavowal. Their condition, however, did not differ between the two states: in both, they did not worship what he worshipped. There was therefore no benefit in changing the wording concerning them. The wording was changed only concerning him and the believers because the two meanings differ.

A person’s certainty, sincerity, affirmation of Allah’s oneness, disavowal of polytheism and its adherents, and hatred of what they worship and of their worship grow stronger, raising his rank in this respect. In that state, he says to the disbelievers:

“You do not worship what I worship,”

whether or not their disbelief and hatred of him have increased.