According to Taberî, the ruler who disputed with Prophet Ibrahim was Nimrod who lived in Babylon, he was the first tyrant king on earth, and he was the owner of the palace (savma/sarh) in Babylon. He also explains that the expression 'ألم تر' does not mean visual sight, but rather understanding and comprehension in the heart, and therefore it is an expression of wonder/amazement directed at the Prophet. He also reports different narrations regarding Nimrod's lineage.

وهو أول ملك تجبر في الأرض، وهو صاحب الصرح ببابل

Kurtubî addresses Ibrahim's dispute with Nimrod in this section, noting that the verse is evidence for the permissibility of question-answer and disputation regarding religion from Allah's perspective. He conveys that truth can only be distinguished from falsehood when the evidence of truth emerges and the evidence of falsehood is refuted, and therefore there are many examples of this in the Quran and Sunnah (Noah, Moses-Pharaoh, the Prophet's imprecation with the People of the Book, the companions' disputation on the day of Saqifah, etc.). He also states that the verse 'fe lem tuhâccûne fîmâ leyse leküm bihî ilmün' constitutes evidence that argumentation with knowledge is permissible.

فهو كله تعليم من الله عز وجل السؤال والجواب والمجادلة في الدين لأنه لا يظهر الفرق بين الحق والباطل إلا بظهور حجة الحق ودحض حجة الباطل

According to Ibn Kesîr, in this verse Ibrahim's transition from one argument to another does not stem from seeking a real answer to Nimrod's response, but rather from the first point constituting a premise for the second point; both reveal that Nimrod's claim is false. Nimrod's claim of killing-pardoning and giving life and guiding is not a real answer to what Ibrahim said, because it does not prevent the existence of the Creator; he has only claimed this position for himself through obstinacy and struggle. When Nimrod understood his helplessness and that his power of struggle was cut off, he became silent ('bühite').

والظاهر والله أعلم أنه ما أراد هذا لأنه ليس جوابا لما قال إبراهيم ولا في معناه لأنه غير مانع لوجود الصانع وإنما أراد أن يدعي لنفسه هذا المقام عنادا ومكابرة ويوهم أنه الفاعل لذلك وأنه هو الذي يحيي ويميت

According to Zemahşerî, the expression 'اثاقلتم' in the verse means 'تثاقلتم' and carries the meaning of reluctance, lagging behind, and laziness in response to the call to go to war. This verb is not normally used with the prepositional particle 'إلى', but here it has been given the meaning of inclination and attachment to the world and made transitive with 'إلى'. According to this, the meaning of the verse is that the believers inclined toward the world and its lusts, and disliked the hardship and difficulty of the journey.

أي تباطأتم وتقاعستم

According to this commentator, the person who disputed in the verse is Nimrod son of Kenan, and he is the first tyrant who claimed lordship. There is disagreement about whether the disputation occurred before the idols were broken or after they were cast into the fire. Furthermore, it has been discussed whether the pronoun in the verse refers to Ibrahim or to the disbeliever, and the view that it refers to Ibrahim has been found more apparent.

فقال مجاهد : هو نمروذ بن كنعان ، وهو أول من / تجبر وادعى الربوبية

According to this commentator, Nimrod's opposition to Allah's lordship is due to the wealth given to him making him arrogant and corrupting him, and his foolishness. Ibrahim's statement 'Allah brings the sun from the east, you bring it from the west' is his resort to a clear proof against Nimrod's corrupt objection, something he could never accomplish; this is not a transition from one proof to another proof, but rather a transition from a hidden example to an evident example. The reason for Nimrod's behavior is shown as the arrogance wealth gives, foolishness, or the belief in incarnation (hulul).

وهو في الحقيقة عدول عن مثال خفي إلى مثال جلي من مقدوراته