Commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: (( He went )) secretly (( to their gods )), which are the idols, and there was food with them.

"That is, he went secretly to their gods, which are the idols, and there was food with them" He went to their gods, which are the idols they worship. He said: "and there was food with them" The author derived this from his statement: because offering them food indicates that food was present. Good. "Raagh" to their gods means he went secretly and departed secretly. As is known, "raagh" implies speed, the speed of a person, but in a way that no one perceives. And he "raagh" to these gods, meaning their objects of worship. And "ala" here is for offering. Is this statement a way of compelling them? The answer is no, it is not a way of compelling them, and it is not possible to compel them to eat, because he knows they will not eat. But he said it in a way of mockery and ridicule, and to compel these worshippers to realize that these idols do not deserve worship. Not because they are self-sufficient regarding food, but because they do not have intellect and do not know. And that which does not have intellect and does not know cannot be an object of worship. Then, even if it is true that they placed food with them, this is proof that they are not worthy of divinity, because a god is self-sufficient regarding others. For this reason, Allah established the proof that 'Isa ibn Maryam and his mother are not gods, because they eat food. And that He, Glorified and Exalted is He, alone is the true God, because He feeds and is not fed. So the need of what is worshipped for food is proof of its deficiency and that it is not fit to be a god. But in their foolishness, they place this food with them as if it needs it, eats it, and acts upon it.
He addressed these idols as if they were rational beings in his statement: and he did not say "What" but rather "What is the matter with you" as a concession to their companions who consider them to be possessors of knowledge and possessors of acceptance and rejection. It means: what prevents you from speaking if you are gods?
If someone says: Was this address to these idols in the absence of their worshippers? If you say yes, what is the benefit of this address? And if you say no, how is the answer to his statement: The answer is that we say: their worshippers did not all depart from them, but there were guards with them, which necessitates that Ibrahim (peace be upon him) spoke to these idols with such words. Otherwise, if no one had been with them, this speech of his would be what? It would be nonsense with no benefit. But there were guards with them who could not know about them what Ibrahim knew, because he offered them food and they did not speak. And if they do not speak and have no will or consciousness, they are not fit for worship. Good.