Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:63

Their statement, "Indeed, these two are magicians," etc., is an explanation of their secret consultation and the result of their deliberation and mutual negotiation after they had consulted and debated.

It is said that their private consultation consisted of their saying when they heard the speech of Musa (peace be upon him), "This is not the speech of a magician." This is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ishaq. It is also said that they stated, "If Musa defeats us, we will follow him." This is transmitted from al-Farra’ and al-Zajjaj.

Another view is that they said, "If this man is a magician, we will surely defeat him; but if he is from heaven, then he has a specific mission." This is narrated from Qatada. According to these views, the subject of their affair is the affair of Musa (peace be upon him), and its attribution to them is due to the slightest connection, as it occurred among them and they were concerned with it. Their secrecy was regarding Pharaoh and his chiefs. Their saying, "Indeed, these two are magicians," is interpreted as them having differed among themselves regarding the aforementioned statements, then their opinions settled on this, and they insisted on confrontation for the purpose of opposition. It is a sentence initiated as a rhetorical explanation, as if it were said: "What did they say to the people after the dispute ended?" So it was said, "They said, 'Indeed, these two are magicians,'" etc. Making the pronoun in "they said" refer to Pharaoh and his chiefs—meaning they said this to the magicians to prevent them from differing, to command them to be unanimous and resolute, and to show fortitude—would be detrimental to the elegance of the noble arrangement, as sound taste testifies. Indeed, if the pronoun in "they disputed" and the subsequent pronouns were attributed to the magicians, as the majority of exegetes have held, then that flaw would not exist. Inna is softened from anna, and it has been neglected from acting, and the lam is the fariqah (distinguishing particle).

Ibn Kathir read it with the nun of hadhan (هذان) intensified (hadd), which is contrary to the rule of distinguishing between indeclinable nouns and others.

The Kufans said that inna (إن) is negative and the lam (لـ) functions as illa (إلا), meaning: "These two are nothing but magicians." This is supported by the fact that it was read this way. In a narration from Ubayy, he read, "In hadhan illa saahiran" (إن هذان إلا ساحران). It was also read as "In dhan" (إن ذان) without the ha of attention, "illa saahiran." Ibn Khalawayh attributed this to Abdullah, and some attributed it to Ubayy, and it also supports that view. It was also read "In dhan lasaahiran" by dropping only the ha of attention. Abu Ja’far, al-Hasan, Shaybah, al-A’mash, Talha, Humayd, Ayyub, Khalaf in his choice, Abu ‘Ubayd, Abu Hatim, Ibn ‘Isa al-Asbahani, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Jubayr al-Antaki, the two brothers (Hamza and al-Kisa’i), and the two companions (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) from the seven, read it with the nun of inna (إنَّ) intensified, and hadhan (هذان) with an alif and a nun (i.e., hadhan instead of hadhayn). This reading has been considered problematic, to the extent that it was said to be a solecism (lahn) and an error, based on what Abu ‘Ubayd extracted in Fada’il al-Qur’an from Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, from his father, who said: I asked ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) about the lahn in the Qur’an, about His saying, "Indeed, these two are magicians" (in hadhan lasaahiran), and about His saying, "And those who establish prayer and those who give zakat" (wal-muqimina al-salat wal-mu’tuna al-zakat), and about His saying, "And those who are Jews and the Sabaeans" (wa-alladhina hadu wal-sabi’una). She replied: "O son of my brother, this is the work of the scribes; they made an error in the writing." Its chain of narration is authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim), as Jalal al-Suyuti said. This is extremely problematic: for how can it be thought of the Companions, firstly, that they would commit a solecism in speech, let alone the Qur’an, while they were the most eloquent of people? Then, how can it be thought of them, secondly, that they would err in the Qur’an which they received from the Prophet (peace be upon him) exactly as it was revealed, and they spared no effort in its preservation, accuracy, and perfection? Then, how can it be thought of them, thirdly, that they all agreed upon an error and wrote it down? Then, how can it be thought of them, fourthly, that they did not notice it or retract it? Then, how can it be thought, fifthly, that the error persisted when it has been narrated through consecutive transmission (tawatur) from generation to generation? If such a thing were permissible, confidence in the Qur’an would vanish.

This reading has been explained in several ways: First: That inna (إن) means "yes." A group, including al-Mubarrad and al-Akhfash al-Saghir, held this view, and they cited the verse: "The censurers rose early in the morning to blame me, and I blame them; they find white hair has covered me, and I have grown old, so I said, 'Yes' (innahu)." The best way to use this as evidence is the statement of Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) to someone who said to him: "May Allah curse the camel that carried me to you and its rider," since it was said, "Yes" (inna). In the verse, we do not concede that inna means "yes," but rather that the ha is for silence (sakt), but it is the accusative inna, and the ha is a pronoun in the accusative governed by it, and the predicate is omitted, meaning: "Indeed, it is like that." It is not correct to say that it is in the predicate as "like that," and the omission of both parts is not permitted. This view is weakened by the fact that inna meaning "yes" is not established, or it is rare. Even if its occurrence were established without being rare, there is no preceding statement requiring a response for "yes" to fall into its place. The claim that it is understood from the context of the speech that some said "they are two magicians," and then one confirmed it and said "yes," is far-fetched. Similar to this is the claim that it confirms what is understood from Pharaoh’s saying, "Have you come to us to drive us out of our land with your magic, O Musa?" Also, the lam of the beginning (lam al-ibtida') does not enter the predicate of the subject (if inna is treated as inna of affirmation). This was answered by saying that the lam is redundant and not for the beginning, as in the saying: "Umm al-Hulays is an old woman; with the neck bone she is satisfied with the meat." Or that it enters upon an omitted subject, meaning: "They are two magicians," as al-Zajjaj chose, saying: "I presented it to our scholar, our Shaykh, and our master Muhammad ibn Zayd (meaning al-Mubarrad) and the Judge Isma’il ibn Ishaq ibn Hammad, and they accepted it and mentioned that it is the best I have heard on this." Or that it entered after this inna because of its resemblance to the emphasizing anna in wording, just as an (أن) was added after the infinitive ma (ما) due to its resemblance to the negative in his saying: "A youth’s hope for good, as long as I saw him, he never ceases to increase in goodness." The first was refuted by saying that its redundancy in the predicate is specific to poetry, and this is a place of dispute, so it is not valid to use it as an argument, as al-Naysaburi imagined. The second was criticized by Abu ‘Ali in al-Aghfal with the essence that emphasis is only used where ambiguity is feared; if it reaches the point of fame, the omission makes the emphasis unnecessary. Were what he mentioned a valid way, the likes of "an old woman" would not be carried on poetic necessity, nor would inna be analogized where the predicate is omitted as in "Inna mahalla wa-inna murtahala." They come together in emphasis because it resembles the negative la (لا), and carrying the opposite on the opposite is common. Ibn Jinni held that omission is for brevity and emphasis is for elaboration, and combining them is impossible due to contradiction. Answer: It is replied that the omission is due to the presence of a signifier and the claim of it being unnecessary is not granted; the emphasis is for the content of the sentence, not for the omitted part. Carrying it in the verse is also possible, and their limiting it to poetic necessity is oversight. How much the predecessors left for the successors! The combination of brevity and elaboration, with different aspects, is not impossible. The most authentic witness for the entry of the lam in such speech is what al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Ibn Majah narrated: "The most enviable of my friends to me is a believer who is light in burden." Yes, there is no dispute about the scarcity of this omission in usage and analogy. Second: That inna is among the accusative particles, its subject is the pronoun of the affair (dhamir al-sha'n), and what follows is a subject and predicate, and the sentence is its predicate. Early grammarians held this view. It is weakened by the fact that the pronoun of the affair is intended for strengthening speech, and what is as such does not suit omission. What is heard of its omission, as in the statement: "Indeed, whoever blames me in Bani Nabat, I shall make him suffer and disobey him in difficulties," and his saying: "Indeed, whoever enters the church one day will find damsels and gazelles," is of necessity or rare, except in the case of the open anna when it is lightened; they made it easy because it occurred in speech built on lightening, so it was omitted following the omission of the nun. Because if it were mentioned, intensification would be necessary, as pronouns return things to their origins. Then the discussion of the entry of the lam into the predicate returns, and if one insists on estimating a subject it enters upon, you have heard the criticism and defense regarding it. Third: That it is the accusative inna, and the ha is the pronoun of the story (dhamir al-qissa) as its subject, and the sentence "dhan lasaahiran" is its predicate. It is weakened in that it requires connecting the ha to inna by confirming the alif and separating the ha from dhan in writing, and what is in the codex is not like that. Moreover, the discussion of the entry of the lam returns. Fourth: That inna is ignored (mulghah), even if it is intensified, carried over from the lightened form, just as the lightened form was made to act by being carried over from it in His saying: "And indeed, all of them will surely be recompensed," or because its rank is lowered from the verb, for its acting is not by essence but by resemblance to it. What follows it is a subject and predicate. ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa held this, but this ignoring has not been seen in any place other than this, which is the place of dispute, and the discussion of the lam remains as it is. Fifth: Which is the best and most appropriate of the views, chosen by Abu Hayyan, Ibn Malik, al-Akhfash, Abu ‘Ali al-Farisi, and a group: it is the accusative inna, the demonstrative pronoun is its subject, the lam is the lam of the beginning, and saahiran is its predicate. The appearance of the demonstrative pronoun with the alif despite it being in the accusative is in accordance with the dialect of some Arabs to treat the dual with the alif always. Their poet said: "Alas for Rayya, then alas, alas! O, I wish her eyes were ours, and her mouth..." and "The place of the anklet on her legs (rijlayha) with a price we satisfy her father with." And the other said: "And he lowered his gaze like the brave, though if he saw a way, he would have attacked like the brave." And they said: "I hit him between his two ears (udhnah) and who will buy the two boots (al-khuffan)?" This is a dialect of Kinanah; Abu al-Khattab narrated this, and of Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b, Khath’am, Zubayd, and the people of that region. al-Kisa’i narrated this, as well as of Banu al-‘Anbar, Banu al-Hayjam, Murad, and ‘Udhrah. Abu Zayd said: I heard from the Arabs those who flip every ya preceded by a fathah into an alif. Ibn al-Hajib says: "Indeed, hadhan is indeclinable because it points to the meaning of demonstration, and that the saying of the majority hadhayn in the genitive and accusative is also not an inflection." Ibn Hisham said: "According to this, the reading hadhan is more analogical, as the origin of the indeclinable is that its form does not change, and it has an affinity for the alif of saahiran." As for the previous report from ‘A’isha, Ibn Ashtah answered it, followed by Ibn Jabarah in his explanation of the Ra’iyyah, stating that her saying "they made an error" is in the sense that they erred in choosing the first of the seven ahruf (modes) to gather the people upon, not that what they wrote of it is an error that is not permissible; for what is not permissible in everything is rejected by consensus, even if the period of its occurrence is long. Similar answers are given to other reports narrated from her. And from Ibn Abbas on this topic, its apparent meanings are problematic. Then he extracted from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i that he said: "Indeed, these two are magicians" (in hadhan lasaahiran) and "Indeed, these two are magicians" (in hadhayni lasaahiran) are the same; perhaps they wrote the alif in place of the ya, meaning it is from substituting one letter in writing for another, as occurred in salah, zakah, and hayah. This is refuted by the fact that it would only be good if the reading with the ya were already there. You know that the mentioned answer does not resolve the root of the problem because ‘Urwah’s calling it lahn in the question remains, unless it is said: he meant by lahn the "language" (dialect), as Ibn Ashtah said regarding the statement of Ibn Jubayr narrated from him in various ways regarding "And those who establish prayer" (wal-muqimina), that it is a lahn (linguistic style) from the scribe. Or it is said: he meant by it lahn according to initial thought. Ibn al-Anbari inclined toward weakening the narrations in this regard and opposing them with other narrations from Ibn Abbas and others that indicate the validity of the ahruf regarding which it was said what was said in the reading. Perhaps the report mentioned that it is of authentic chain according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs is included in that. But Jalal al-Suyuti said: The first answer mentioned by Ibn Ashtah is better and more grounded. Al-‘Ala’ said regarding what Ibn al-Anbari and others extracted from ‘Ikrimah: He said: "When the codices were written, they were presented to ‘Uthman, and he found in them some letters of lahn. He said: 'Do not change them, for the Arabs will change them,' or he said, 'They will read them in their tongues.' If the scribe were from Thaqif and the dictator from Hudhail, these letters would not be found in it." This does not hold true from ‘Uthman, for its chain is weak, confused, and disconnected. The one whom I rely on, and the Protector is Allah the Exalted, is the weakening of all that was reported which contains an attack on what is mutawatir (consecutively transmitted), and which does not accept an interpretation that expands the chest and is accepted by sound taste, even if those who authenticated it authenticated it. Attacking the narrators is much easier than attacking the Imams who received the Great Qur’an which reached us via consecutive transmission from the Prophet (peace be upon him) and who spared no effort in its perfection and preservation. Scholars of terminology have mentioned that among what helps in realizing the fabrication of a report is what is gathered from the state of the narrated text, such as it being contradictory to the text of the Qur’an, or the mutawatir Sunnah, or the definitive consensus, or clear reason where none of that accepts interpretation, or if it does not allow the removal of a portion of it that would remove the prohibited aspect. If someone were to say that some of those reports were fabricated, it would not be far-fetched. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

Abu ‘Amr read "In hadhayni" (إن هذين) with the intensification of the nun of inna and with the ya in hadhayni. This is narrated from ‘A’isha, al-Hasan, al-A’mash, al-Nakha’i, al-Jahdari, Ibn Jubayr, and Ibn ‘Ubayd. The inflection of this is clear as it came upon the known path in the likes of it. However, in al-Durr al-Masun, this reading was considered problematic because it opposes the script of the Imam, for the demonstrative pronoun in it is without alif and ya, so the confirmation of the ya is an addition to it. Hence, al-Zajjaj said: "I do not permit it." But it is of no account because it is a shared obligation. Even if it were granted, how many readings exist that contradict the script with the rule, whereas the omission of the alif is not by rule either.

"They want to drive you out of your land" — meaning the land of Egypt by taking it over — "with their magic" — which they showed before. The attribution of this to Harun is because they saw him with Musa (peace be upon them) following his way. This sentence is an adjective or a predicate after a predicate.

"And take away your exemplary path" — meaning your religion/method which is the best of methods and the most exemplary — "by showing their method and elevating their religion." They want by this what the people of Pharaoh were upon, not the way of magic, for they did not believe it to be a religion. It is said: they meant "people of your path," so the speech is based on the estimation of an omitted noun, and they meant the Children of Israel, due to Musa’s (peace be upon him) saying, "Send with us the Children of Israel," and they were masters of knowledge among themselves.

Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted this from Ibn Abbas and it was criticized by saying that driving them out of their land is only by taking it over through control and action, so how is the transport of the Children of Israel to the Levant imagined then? And carrying the "driving out" to the driving out of the Children of Israel from it while the people of Pharaoh remain in their state is something the Revelation must be purified from the likes of. Moreover, this statement from them is for incitement by exaggerating in competition and concern for opposition, so the warning and caution must be of the most severe of detested things and the most difficult for them. There is no doubt that the driving out of the Children of Israel from among them and going with them to the Levant, while they (the Egyptians) are secure in their homes, does not have much of a drawback. It is speech on which signs of acceptance shine, so perhaps the report from the scholar (Ibn Abbas) is not authentic. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim also extracted from Mujahid that "the path" (al-tariqah) is a name for the faces (leaders) of the people and their notables. So-and-so is the "path of his people," meaning their master. This was done as a metaphor for their following him as one follows a path. They extracted from ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with his face) that the application of this to them was in Syriac, and as if they meant by these "faces" (notables), the notables of Pharaoh's people, the masters of positions and the owners of authority and ranks. So they warned them by driving them out of their homelands and separating the position-holders among them from their positions, and in that is the ultimate humiliation and disgrace and the end of the accidents of time. So what was said — that the specification of taking them away has no merit — is of no account. It is said: they meant by them the Children of Israel also because they were more numerous in wealth and nobler in lineage, and in that is what passed earlier. It was also objected that their enslavement, usage, killing of their children, and torturing them contradicts this.

It was answered by denying [the contradiction], for how many a followed one is oppressed, and a noble one is captured by the hands of the base, and it is as you see.