Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:21

Then he remembered his Lord, the Glorified, so he paused out of reverence for Him, the Almighty and Majestic. Then it was called out to him, "O Moses!" until "Return to where you were." He returned in a state of intense fear. Then He, the Almighty and Exalted, commanded him to take it, which is what Allah, the Exalted, related by saying, "He said" (meaning Allah, the Almighty and Majestic; the sentence is an resumption, as previously mentioned), "Take it" (meaning the serpent—it was, as narrated from Ibn Abbas, a male; and according to Wahb, Allah the Exalted said to him, "Take it with your right hand"), "and do not fear" (from it). Perhaps that fear was what human nature dictates; for a human, by the requirements of his nature, fears when witnessing such a thing, and this does not contradict [the status of] the exalted in rank.

It is said: He, peace be upon him, only feared because he saw a terrifying matter originating directly from Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, without an intermediary, and he did not fathom the reality of it. This is not like the fire of Abraham, peace be upon him, for that originated at the hands of an enemy of Allah, the Exalted, and its reality was known as fire; thus, he did not fear it as Moses, peace be upon him, feared the serpent. It is also said: He only feared because he knew what he had encountered from that species, as it had played a role in the expulsion of his father from Paradise.

The prohibition was joined to the command to signal that the absence of what is prohibited is intended for its own sake, not merely to fulfill what is commanded. His saying, "We will return it" (meaning after taking it), "to its former state" (meaning its original condition), which is that of a staff, is an resumption intended to provide the rationale for compliance with the command and the prohibition; for returning it to what it was is one of the causes for taking it and not fearing it. The claim that it also contains a noble promise by showing another miracle at his hand, peace be upon him, and an indication that it is subjugated to him—so that he may be in a state of tranquility regarding his affair and not be struck by any suspicion that would cause him to tremble when arguing with Pharaoh—is not without obscurity. Some mentioned that the wisdom of its transformation into a serpent and his being commanded to take it and prohibited from fearing is to comfort him in what He, the Almighty, knows will happen to him with Pharaoh; perhaps this is the source of that claim.

It is said: At this address, he, peace be upon him, reached such a degree of confidence and lack of fear that he would insert his hand into its mouth and take it by its jaws. In a narration by Imam Ahmad and others from Wahb, when Allah the Exalted commanded him to take it, he brought the edge of his garment near his hand—he was wearing a woolen cloak fastened with a wooden pin—and an angel said to him, "O Moses, do you see if Allah the Exalted permitted what you are cautious of, would the garment avail you anything?" He said, "No, but I am weak, and of weakness I was created." So he uncovered his hand, then placed it on the mouth of the serpent until he heard the sound of the molars and fangs, then he gripped it, and it was the staff he knew, and his hand was in its place, the one he would use for support between the two prongs. The first narration is more appropriate for his exalted station, peace be upon him.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he, peace be upon him, was called the first time, "O Moses, take it," but he did not take it. Then he was called a second time, "Take it and do not fear," but he did not take it. Then he was called a third time, "You are of those who are secure," so he took it. Makki mentioned in his Tafsir that it was said to him the third time: "We will return it to its former state." It is not hidden that what is mentioned is far from the station of Prophethood; perhaps the report is not authentic.

Sirah is a noun form derived from sayr (to move), used for the mode and state in which something exists. Then it was abstracted for the absolute state and condition something is in. From this is its usage in "doctrine" and "path" in their saying, "the sirah (practice) of the predecessors," and the saying of the poet: "Do not be angry at a sirah (conduct) you have practiced, for the first to be content with a sirah is the one who practices it."

There is a difference of opinion regarding the parsing of its accusative case in the verse. It is said: It is accusative because of the removal of the preposition, the origin being "to its sirah" (ila siratiha) or "for its sirah" (li-siratiha), which is common, even if they say it is not analogical. This is the manifest view of al-Hawfi: that it is a second object for "We will return it" with the omission of the preposition, similar to "And Moses chose his people." Ibn Malik adopted this, and Ibn Hisham approved it. Az-Zamakhshari permitted it to be from ‘āda (returned), not from ‘āda (accustomed), meaning "returned to it," from which is the saying of Zuhayr: "So he severed its rope when he severed it, and it returned to you that you might meet it..." thus it takes two objects. It appears this is different from the first interpretation, due to the consideration of transmission regarding it; the preposition is omitted from a‘āda without regard to its triliteral root, and ‘āda is transitive by itself. This is confirmed by transmission. Al-Tayyibi transmitted from al-Asma‘i that ‘ādaka in the verse is transitive, meaning "diverted you," and the learned Yemeni transmitted the same. In al-Maghrib, "The return is the beginning of becoming, and secondly, it is transitive by itself, by ila, ‘ala, and fi, and by lam." Similar is in Mashariq al-Lugha by Qadi Iyad, and he quoted from the Hadith: "You have returned a tempter, O Mu'adh." Abu al-Baqa said: "It is a substitute for the pronoun of the object, a substitute of inclusion (badal ishtimal)." He also permitted the accusative to be for adverbial reasons, meaning: "We will return it in its first way."

Abu Hayyan refuted this, saying: "Its sirah and its tariqah (way) is a specific container (dharf), so the verb does not reach it by way of adverbiality except by means of fi (in), and omission is not permitted except in necessity or in what the Arabs deemed irregular." Its conclusion is that the condition for being accusative as an adverb here—which is indefiniteness—is missing. In Sharh at-Tashil, it is stated from the grammarians of the Maghrib that they divided the indefinite into types, among them being that which is derived from the verb, like madhhab (path), and the infinitive placed for a container, like "your intention" (qasd-uka), and they did not differentiate between those ending in ta and others. Thus, the accusative for adverbiality in what was mentioned is neither irregular nor a necessity.

Az-Zamakhshari permitted—and deemed it good—that "We will return it" be independent in itself, not related to "its sirah," meaning that it was created first as a staff, then it vanished and was invalidated by being transformed into a serpent, so we will return it after its vanishing, just as we created it at first. And "its sirah" is accusative as an absolute object (maf‘ul mutlaq) for an implied verb, meaning: "It will follow its first sirah," i.e., "We will return it moving in its first sirah where you used to lean upon it and beat down leaves for your sheep, and you had in it the uses you knew." End quote.

It appears he made the sentence consisting of the implied verb and its subject an adverbial state (hal), and it is permissible for it to be an resumption. It is not hidden from you that what he mentioned, although it refines the meaning, is contrary to what is immediately apparent.

Furthermore, the verse is manifest regarding the possibility of a thing changing from its reality, like the changing of copper into gold. A group has held this, and there is no obstacle in Power to the targeting of the creative command toward that, and the specification of the Will for it. It is said: It is not permissible because the changing of essences is impossible and Power does not relate to it. The truth is the first view: meaning that He, the Exalted, creates instead of copper, for example, gold—which is the view of some researchers—or by stripping from the parts of the copper the quality by which it became copper and creating in it the quality by which it becomes gold, according to the view of some theologians regarding the homogeneity of substances and their equality in accepting qualities. The impossible is only its changing into gold while remaining copper, due to the impossibility of a thing being in one time both copper and gold. The transformation of the staff into a serpent was by one of these two considerations, and Allah, the Exalted, knows best which of them it was. The one I incline toward is the second, for there is obscurity in the creation of a substitute being a "transformation," as is not hidden.