Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:69

That is, your staff, as has occurred in Surah Al-A‘raf. The expression of it in this manner was to remind him of what took place and what he, peace be upon him, witnessed of it on the day when the Almighty said to him: {And what is in your right hand, O Musa?}

Some investigators have stated: The ambiguity was preferred only to heighten the awe of its affair, to magnify its status, and to signal that it is not of the genus of ordinary staffs that entail customary effects; rather, it is outside the boundaries of all other members of its genus—ambiguous because it entails strange effects. The failure to observe this nuance when recounting the command in other places does not necessitate its absence where the occurrence was recounted. In sum, the ambiguity is for magnification; the staff, due to the grandeur of its status, is such that knowledge cannot encompass it, similar to: {...then covered them from the sea that which covered them.} The recounting of the command in other places occurred according to the meaning, and the reality itself is what contains this nuance, even if it is not by the same wording. The alternative was not considered because the one that contains [the nuance] is more suited to the context of forbidding fear and encouraging him, peace be upon him.

Abu Hayyan said: It was expressed this way rather than "your staff" due to the meaning of "fortune" (yumn) and blessing in the word "right" (yamin). However, this is countered by the fact that the address was not in the Arabic language. It is said: The ambiguity is for belittlement, meaning: do not be concerned by the multitude of their ropes and staffs; cast the little stick that is in your hand, for by the power of Allah the Exalted, it will swallow them despite its singleness and their multiplicity, and its smallness and their greatness. This is countered by the fact that the prominence of its state, as mentioned twice previously, refutes it; furthermore, that meaning is only appropriate if the staff had done what it did while being in its original state, whereas what transpired, transpired.

It is possible that ma (what) is functioning as an adjective, and it is possible that it is a relative pronoun. Under both views, it is said that the most appropriate for the first is the first, and for the second is the second.

His saying, the Almighty: {...it will swallow up what they have crafted}—in the jussive mood—is the response to the command. Laqafa means to seize with skill by the hand or the mouth; the intent here is the latter. The feminine form is because ma refers to the staff, meaning: it will swallow what they have crafted of ropes and staffs which were made to appear to you as if they were moving. Expressing it as what they have crafted is for belittlement and to signal deceit and forgery. The majority read talaqaf with a fathah on the lam, a shaddah on the qaf, and by dropping one of the two ta's from tata-laqaf. Ibn ‘Amir read it similarly, except that he made the verb nominative (talaqafu), on the basis that the sentence is a new beginning by way of explanation, the state being implied from the doer of "cast" based on its being the cause, or from its object—meaning: "being swallowed" or "swallowing." The sentence of the command is conjoined to the prohibition, completed by what is within its scope to explain the cause of its necessity by clarifying how he, peace be upon him, became superior and victorious. For the swallowing by his staff, peace be upon him, of their falsehoods—from which he felt a secret apprehension—uproots the cause of fear entirely. Some have claimed that this is explicit evidence that his fear, peace be upon him, was not due to doubt creeping into his heart regarding the miracle of the staff; otherwise, it would have been explained by the promise that necessitates their faith. There is deliberation in this.

His saying, the Almighty: {...what they have crafted...}, is a clarification for His saying: {...it will swallow up what they have crafted}. Ma is either a relative pronoun, an adjective, or an infinitive, meaning: that which they have crafted, or something they have crafted, or their crafting. {...is but the trickery of a magician}—in the nominative, as the predicate of inna, meaning: the trickery of the genus of the magician. Its indefiniteness is to facilitate what the context requires regarding the indefiniteness of the annexed noun; if it were definite, the annexed-to noun would be definite, which is not intended. It was objected that it is permissible for its annexing definiteness to be for the genus, which is like the indefinite in meaning; the only difference between them is its presence in the mind. It was answered that there is no need to specify its genus, for it is something known from His saying: {...it is made to appear to him...}. The purpose, after identifying it, is to mention that it is a tricked-out affair that has no reality, and this is known by taste (dhawq). It is said: It was made indefinite to facilitate the belittlement of the annexed noun. This was countered by the fact that even if it were to convey the belittlement of the annexed noun, it does not suit the context, and because it would imply the division of magic into "lowly" and "great," which is not intended. Furthermore, it contradicts His saying in another verse: {...and they brought a great magic}, unless one says that its greatness is from a perspective that does not contradict its baseness in itself, and that is what is meant by belittling it. It is said: It was only mentioned so that the mind does not go to the idea that a specific known magician is intended. So, ponder this.

Mujahid, Humayd, and Zayd ibn ‘Ali (may Allah have mercy on them) read kayda (trickery) in the accusative as the object of sana‘u (they crafted), and ma as a kaffah (preventative particle).

Hamzah, Al-Kisa’i, Abu Bahriyyah, Al-A‘mash, Talhah, Ibn Abi Layla, Khalaf in his selection, Ibn ‘Isa al-Asbahani, Ibn Jubayr al-Antaki, and Ibn Jarir read sihr (magic) with a kasrah on the sin and a sukun on the ha’, in the sense of "possessor of magic," or by naming the magician "magic" as an exaggeration, as if, through his immersion in magic, he became magic itself. It is said: it is on the basis that the annexation is to explain that the trickery is of the genus of magic. This annexation is from the annexation of the general to the specific, and it is in the sense of the lam (for) according to the commentator of Al-Hadi, and in the sense of min (of/from) according to what is understood from the apparent speech of the Sharif in the beginning of Sharh al-Miftah; it is called an explanatory annexation. It is carried [in meaning] where the annexed-to noun is found, and it is not a condition that there be a general/specific relationship from one perspective between the two annexed terms, though some have stipulated that.

His saying, the Almighty: {...and the magician will not succeed}—meaning this genus—{...wherever he goes}, meaning wherever he is and wherever he turns. Haythu is a place adverb intended for generalization as part of the explanation. He did not mention the status of the staff and its being a divine miracle, despite the reinforcement of the explanation therein, to signal the obviousness of its affair. Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduwayh narrated from Jundub ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Bajali that he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "If you seize the magician, kill him." Then he recited: {And the magician will not succeed wherever he goes}, saying: He will not find faith wherever he is found. A group read it as ayna ata (wherever he comes).