Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:23

The particle li (in linuriya-ka) is connected to that which is omitted. Some, such as those who posit the implied verb "take" (khudh) or the like, permitted its connection to that. Al-Hawfi permitted its connection to uḍmum (draw) and to takhruj (come forth). Abu al-Baqa’ connected it to what is indicated by āyah—meaning: "We have indicated by it [the miracle] so that We may show you." He prohibited its connection to āyah itself because it has already been described. Others connected it to alqi (throw).

Some investigators chose the view that it is connected to an implied element to which the noble structure of the text leads, as if it were said: "We have done what We have done so that We may show you some of Our greatest signs." This is based on al-kubrā being an adjective for āyātinā, similar to [the phrase] ma’āribu ukhra. Here, min āyātinā is in the position of the second direct object, and min denotes partiality. Alternatively, it may mean: "So that We may show you through that, the greatest of Our signs," based on al-kubrā being the second direct object of nuriyaka, while min āyātinā is connected to an omitted circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) related to it, with min denoting inception or partiality. The advancement of the circumstantial qualifier—even though its possessor is definite—is for the sake of maintaining the rhyme scheme.

Al-Hawfi, Ibn ‘Atiyyah, Abu al-Baqa’, and others permitted both of these grammatical analyses for min āyātinā al-kubrā. In al-Baḥr, the first analysis was chosen and favored on the basis that it indicates that all of His—Exalted is He—signs are "great," unlike the second analysis. Furthermore, under the second analysis, al-kubrā cannot be an adjective for both the staff and the hand together; otherwise, it would have been said al-kubrayayn (the two greater ones). It is not possible to single out one of them because both contain the meaning of superiority.

The view narrated from al-Hasan and Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the hand is greater in miraculousness than the staff is far-fetched. This is because the hand involved nothing more than a change in color, whereas the staff involved a change in color, the creation of added physical mass, the creation of life, power, and distinct organs, along with its return to being a staff afterward; thus, it was greater in miraculousness than the hand. It has been permitted that al-kubrā is an adjective for both together, and because the intended meaning is unified, they are treated as a single sign, and the adjective is singular for that reason; or that it is an adjective for the hand, with the staff being independent of such a description due to the obviousness of it being "great."

You know that all of this is contrary to the apparent meaning. The same applies to the claim that min—in the second analysis—is for clarification (bayān), meaning "so that We may show you the greater signs from among Our signs," in order to validate the predication required by clarification. This does not make the second analysis superior to the first, nor equal to it at all. It is not hidden from you that any possibility among the potential connections of the lam that lacks evidence for describing the staff as "great" should not be relied upon. One might excuse this by saying the lack of description is due to its obviousness, along with the obviousness of the possibility that does not require an excuse for that statement. So ponder this, and Allah—Exalted is He—is the Protector against error.