Tafsir of Yunus 10:77

Musa said, "Do you say..."

This is an explanatory resumption. It is as if it were said: "What then did Musa (peace be upon him) say to them?" Thus, it is said: He said to them by way of reproving and censuring interrogation: "Do you say regarding the truth"—which is the furthest thing from sorcery, for sorcery is pure falsehood—"when it has come to you"—that is, at the time of its arrival to you and your confrontation with it. This is what is necessitated by what was previously alluded to, or from the very beginning without contemplation or reflection, as has been said. In any case, it is something that contradicts the statement contained within the interrogative.

The object of the verb "say" is omitted, relying on the indication of what precedes and follows it, and to signify that it is something that should not be uttered, even by way of narration. That is: Do you say to the truth what you say—that it is "manifest sorcery"? It is meant that it is something that no speaker could possibly say, nor any utterer articulate.

It is permitted that the object of the saying is His (Exalted is He) statement: "Is this sorcery?" on the premise that their intent with the interrogation is to confirm it for him (peace be upon him), not a true interrogation, because they had already firmly decided the statement that it was sorcery; so how could they be interrogating about it? What is narrated in one of the two places is the intent and meaning of their statement. Otherwise, the story is one, and what was issued in it, according to the outward appearance, is one of the two statements. Its weakness is not hidden.

It is also permitted that "the saying" (al-qawl) means disparagement and criticism, from their saying: "So-and-so fears the qalah (malicious talk)," and "There is taqawul among the people" if some say to others what displeases them. Its counterpart is the "mention" (al-dhikr) in His (the Almighty) saying: "We heard a young man mentioning them, who is called Ibrahim." In this case, one dispenses with the object, and the preposition lam is for clarifying the object of the criticism, as in His (the Almighty) saying: "Haita laka" (Come here). That is: Do you disparage it and criticize it?

Based on this view—and likewise the first view—His (Exalted is He) statement: "Is this sorcery?" is an interrogative denial resumed from the side of Musa (peace be upon him), a denial of their statement and a reproof of them for it, following reproof upon reproof and ignorance upon ignorance.

As for the first view, it is apparent. As for the latter view, the reason for preferring the denial of it being sorcery over the denial of it being disparaged—by saying, "Is there any defect in it?" as the outward appearance of the previous denial necessitates—is the explicitness of the refutation against them regarding the specific nature of what they disparaged it with, after alerting them with the first denial that it is completely free of any defect whatsoever. The predicate is placed first to signify that it is the focus of the denial. The demonstrative pronoun contains a sense of proximity to increase the specification of what is pointed to, and to summon the qualities it possesses which indicate that it is a dazzling sign among the signs of Allah (the Almighty), crying out against the possibility of it being sorcery. This is something whose matter is clear and exposed, and its state is observed and known, such that no one with an observant eye would doubt it.

His (the Almighty) saying: "And the sorcerers will not succeed" is a confirmation of the previous denial and the reproof and accusation of ignorance contained within it. The statement that it is sorcery necessarily entails the statement that the one who brought it is a sorcerer. The clause is in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun of the addressees, and the connector is the waw without a pronoun, as in the saying: "Winter came, and I possess no equipment," and your saying: "Zayd came, and the sun did not rise." That is: Do you say to the truth that it is sorcery, while its practitioner does not succeed? That is: He does not attain a goal, nor is he saved from a disliked thing. And I have succeeded, attained the proof, and been saved from destruction.

The clause "Is this sorcery?" is parenthetical between the state and its possessor to confirm the previous denial by explaining the impossibility of it being sorcery with regard to its essence, before explaining the impossibility of it with regard to its issuance from him (peace be upon him). He who considers it the object of the saying maintains the state of being a hal, and for him, there is no parenthesis. The meaning then is: "Do you compel me to admit that it is sorcery, while the success I am upon is proof that between it and sorcery is further than between the East and the West?"

It is permitted that this clause, like the one before it, is within the scope of their saying and is also a hal, but on a different pattern, and the interrogation is directed toward it. The meaning is: "Have you come to us with sorcery seeking by it success, while the sorcerer does not succeed?" Or they are wondering at his success while he is a sorcerer. It is not hidden that the context and sequence reject this interpretation, so the noble arrangement should not be burdened with that.

In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, it is stated that allowing for the whole to be the object of the saying is something that the noble arrangement does not support at all. Firstly, because what they said is the judgment that it is sorcery, without it containing any indication of the meaning they forced upon it in any way. Thus, diverting his (peace be upon him) response from the explicit words they addressed to him to what is not understood from it—a thing from which the Revelation must be purified—and considering it a parenthesis that turns the denial of the previous statement into a refutation of something even more extreme in denial, I do not see it as proper to turn here to accepting that interpretation in the speech of Allah (the Almighty).

Secondly, because addressing the non-success of sorcerers in an absolute sense is the function of those who hold fast to the manifest truth, not the disbelievers who cling to the tails of some of their own in opposing him (peace be upon him). Even if that were their speech, it would be more appropriate to restrict the non-success to the one they claimed was a sorcerer, based on the prevalence of those whom the sorcerers bring in their opposition. The excuse that clinging to the tails of some sorcerers does not contradict addressing their non-success in an absolute sense—because it is possible that their belief is non-success in an absolute sense, yet they still cling to what they cling to by way of "meeting falsehood with falsehood"—I see this as nothing but the case of the drowning man clutching at a straw.