Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:71

(He said) i.e., Pharaoh said to the magicians: (Did you believe him) i.e., in Moses, as is apparent. Belief (al-iman) is originally transitive by itself, then it became widespread that it is transitive via the particle ba because it contains the meaning of tasdiq (confirming truth), until it became the standard. It is transitive here via the particle lam because it incorporates the meaning of inqiyad (submission), for which the particle lam is used; it is said: "He submitted to him" (inqada lahu), not the meaning of "to follow" (al-ittiba'), as has been claimed, because that is transitive by itself—it is said: "He followed him" (ittaba'ahu), and it is not said: "He followed to him" (ittaba'a lahu). In al-Bahr [al-Muhit], it is stated that amana is connected with ba when its object is Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, and with lam when its object is other than Him, the Exalted, in most instances, such as "He believes in Allah" (yu'minu billah) and "He believes the believers" (yu'minu lil-mu'minin). Thus, "He did not believe Moses" (and so on). It is permitted that the lam is for causality (ta'liliyyah), and the estimation is: "Did you believe in Allah, the Almighty, on account of Moses and what you witnessed from him?" Some have chosen this, and there is no "disentanglement" (tafkik) in it as some have imagined. It is said: It is possible that the pronoun "him" (lahu) refers to the Lord, the Almighty and Majestic; in that case, there is a manifest "disentanglement" in the verse.

The majority read (a-amantum) as an interrogative of reproach, and reproach is what is intended by the sentence even in the first reading, not the benefit of the information nor its consequence. (Before I gave you permission) i.e., without my permission to you to believe, as in His saying, the Almighty: "The sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord are exhausted," not that his permission for them occurred afterward or was expected. Al-Tabarsi distinguished between permission (idhn) and command (amr) by noting that command indicates the commander’s desire for the action to be performed, whereas permission does not contain that. (Indeed, he) i.e., Moses, peace be upon him, (is your leader) i.e., your greatest in your craft, the most knowledgeable of you in it, and your teacher (who taught you magic). It is as if the accursed one first reproached them for believing in him, peace be upon him, without his permission, so that his people might see that their belief was invalid since it was without his permission. Then, he sensed that they might say: "What need is there for permission after we have done what we have done and what proceeded from him, peace be upon him?" So he answered that by saying: (Indeed, he...) etc., meaning: That belief is also invalid because he is your teacher in magic; therefore, you conspired with him on what he brought about, or he taught you something and not another, and for that reason, he overcame you. Thus, the sentence is a justification for an omitted clause. It is said: It is a justification for what was mentioned before. In sum, he said that due to the fear that overcame him that people might follow the magicians in believing in Moses, peace be upon him. Then he turned to them with confirmed threats, saying: (So I will surely cut off) i.e., since the matter is as such, I swear I will surely cut off (your hands and your feet on opposite sides) i.e., the right hand and the left foot. This is the view of the generality of the commentators, and it is a specification from an external source; otherwise, it is possible for it to mean something else. The particle min denotes beginning (ibtida'iyyah). Al-Tabarsi said it means "about" or "upon," but that is nothing. The intended meaning of "opposite" (al-khilaf) is the opposing side or the opposing direction. The prepositional phrase, as it appears, is connected to "I will cut off." It is said: It is connected to an omitted word which acts as an adjective for an omitted verbal noun, meaning: a cutting starting from an opposite side or from an opposite direction. That the cutting begins from there is apparent. It is permissible for al-khilaf to remain in its literal sense, namely, opposition, and to make it the starting point in a metaphorical sense, as it is contrary to what is fundamentally the starting point. Some made the prepositional phrase in the position of the accusative as a state (hal), meaning: I will cut them off while they are opposite. Reflect on this. The determination of this method—it is said—was to signal the certainty of the matter and its execution inevitably, by specifying the manner customary in the field of politics. Perhaps choosing it over simple cutting is because it contains destruction and the loss of benefit, and some claimed it is more heinous. (And I will crucify you in the trunks of the palm trees) i.e., upon them. The choice of the word "in" (fi) is to signify their remaining on them for a long time, likening their persistence upon them to the settling of the object contained within a container. Similar to that is the saying: "And they crucified the 'Abdi in the trunk of a palm tree, so may Shayban never sneeze except with a mutilated nose." In this is a metaphorical derivation (isti'ara taba'iyyah), and the discussion on that is famous. It is said: It is an original metaphor, because Pharaoh hollowed out the trunks of the palm trees and crucified them inside so that they would die of hunger and thirst, but that is hardly correct. Indeed, there is a dispute regarding the origin of the crucifixion; some said: He carried out his threat against them and crucified them, and he was the first to crucify. This is not contradicted by His saying, the Almighty: "You two and those who follow you shall be the victors," because the intent is victory through proof/argument. The Imam said: That has not been established in the reports. You know that the apparent meaning is safety. The taf'il form in the two verbs denotes intensification. It was also read with shortening in both.

(And you shall know which of us is more severe in punishment and more lasting.) He intends by "us," himself and Moses, peace be upon him, by the evidence of the preceding mention in His saying: "Did you believe him?", based on what is apparent therein. Al-Tabari and a group chose this. This is either for the purpose of degrading Moses, peace be upon him, and mocking him, because he, peace be upon him, was not subject to any punishment, or because their belief—in his claim—was not out of witnessing the miracle and beholding the proof, but was out of fear of him, peace be upon him, as they saw his staff overcome their ropes and staffs, so they feared for themselves as well. Abu Hayyan chose that the "other" to whom the pronoun points is the Lord of Moses, the Almighty and Majestic, in whom they believed by saying: "We have believed in the Lord of Aaron and Moses." "And you shall know" here is suspending (mu'allaq), and "which of us is more severe" is an interrogative sentence consisting of a subject and predicate in the position of an object, acting in place of its two objects if "knowing" (al-'ilm) is taken in its literal sense, or in the position of one object for it if it is in the sense of "acquaintance" (ma'rifa). It is permissible in this perspective for "which of us" to be the object, and it is indeclinable according to the view of Sibawayh, and "more severe" is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "He is more severe," and the sentence is a relative clause. "In punishment" is a specification (tamyiz), and its mention with "more severe" suffices for its mention with "more lasting," and that is also intended. The derivation of "more lasting" (abqa) is from "remaining" (baqa') in the sense of perpetuity. It is said—and Allah, the Exalted, knows best—that it is not far-fetched for it to be from "giving/bestowing" (baqa') in the sense of giving, for the accursed one used to give gifts to those he was pleased with, so the verse would have a resemblance to the saying of Nimrod: "I give life and cause death," but that is at the utmost distance for anyone with sound taste. Then, it is not hidden that the accursed one was at the peak of insolence and the end of audacity, as he threatened and warned, flashed and thundered, despite the proximity of his witnessing the transformation of the staff into a serpent and the horrific effects it had, even to the point that it intended to swallow his canopy, so he sought help from Moses, peace be upon him. It is not far-fetched for such a thing to proceed from a wicked tyrant like him.