Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:96

Meaning, the Samiri replied to him (Moses), peace be upon him: "I perceived what they did not perceive," (with the ṣād vocalized with ḍamma in both instances, meaning: I knew what the people did not know, and I discerned what they did not discern). Al-Zajjaj said: It is said, "He baṣura (perceived) a thing" if he knew it, and "abṣara (he saw)" if he looked at it. It is also said that baṣarahu and abṣarahu mean the same thing. Al-Raghib said: Al-Baṣar (sight) is used for the viewing organ and the power contained within it. Baṣīrah and baṣar are used for the perceiving power of the heart. One says abṣartuhu (I saw it) from the first, and abṣartuhu and baṣurtu bihi (I perceived it) from the second. It is rarely said baṣurtu regarding the sense unless accompanied by the vision of the heart.

Al-A'mash and Abu al-Summal read baṣirtu with a kasra on the ṣād. Regarding "what they did not perceive" (mā lam yabṣurū), [some read it] with a fatḥa on the ṣād. Amr ibn Ubayd read buṣirtu with a ḍamma on the bāʾ and a kasra on the ṣād, and mā lam tubaṣṣarū with a ḍamma on the tāʾ and a fatḥa on the ṣād, in the passive voice. Al-Kisa'i, Hamzah, Abu Baḥriyyah, al-A'mash, Ṭalḥah, Ibn Abi Layla, Ibn Manādhir, Ibn Sa'dan, and Qa'nab read it as "what you did not perceive" (mā lam tubaṣṣirū) with an open tāʾ and a ḍamma on the ṣād, the address being to Moses (peace be upon him) and his people. It is also said it is directed to him alone, the plural pronoun being for magnification, as in the Almighty’s saying, "O my Lord, send me back," a view reported from early grammarians and confirmed by al-Tha'alibi in Sirr al-ʿArabiyyah. The argument of al-Riḍā—that magnification only occurs in the first-person plural pronoun, like "we did"—is not accepted, though many followed him.

Some claimed that the interpretation of baṣurtu as "I saw" is more appropriate for what follows, God willing: "And thus my soul suggested to me," especially given the reading of the address. For the claim of knowing what Moses (peace be upon him) did not know is a great audacity that befits neither his state nor his station, unlike the claim of seeing what he did not see, which is something that can happen by coincidence. It has been narrated in what Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn Abbas that he saw Gabriel (peace be upon him) on the day the sea was parted, riding a horse, and he recognized him because he used to feed him as a child when his mother feared for him and cast him into a cave. So he took a handful [of dust] from under the horse's hoof, and it was cast into his heart that he would not cast it upon anything without saying, "Be such and such," except that it would be.

From Ali (may God honor his face), it is narrated that he saw him (peace be upon him) riding a horse when he came to take Moses (peace be upon them both) to the appointed place, and no one else from the people of Moses saw him. He took a handful of earth from where the horse’s hooves had trodden. In some accounts, he saw that whenever he [Gabriel] raised his hands or feet on the dry earth, plants would emerge, so he knew that he had a significant affair and took a handful from the impression left by his feet. This is the Almighty’s saying: "So I took a handful from the trace of the Messenger" (meaning, from the trace of the Messenger’s horse; Abdullah read it this way as well). Thus, the speech involves the omission of a genitive addition (muḍāf), as is the opinion of most commentators, the "trace of the horse" being the earth under its hoof. It is said there is no need for assuming an omission, as the trace of his horse is his trace (peace be upon him). Perhaps that was Gabriel (peace be upon him) by the title of "Messenger" because he only knew him by this title, or to indicate his arrival at divine secrets that the people had not arrived at, confirming what he had begun his speech with, and a warning—as it is said—of the time he took what he took.

Al-Qabḍah (the handful) is the unit of action (marrah) derived from al-qabḍ (grasping); it is applied to that which is grasped in one action. This refutes those who say that the verbal noun (maṣdar) used in this manner is not feminized with the tāʾ—for instance, saying "this is a Yemeni weave" (nasīj) rather than "a weave" (nasjah). The answer is that what is forbidden is the tāʾ that denotes limitation, not mere feminization as is the case here. It is appropriate in this instance not to consider it as a single unit of action, as is evident.

Abdullah, Ubayy, Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Hasan, and Humayd read "I qabaṣtu a qabṣah" with the letter ṣād in both. They distinguished between qabḍ (with ḍād) and qabṣ (with ṣād) by stating that the former is grasping with the entire palm, and the latter is grasping with the fingertips and the like—similar to khaḍm (with khāʾ) for eating with the whole mouth, and qaḍm (with qāf) for eating with the tips of the teeth. It was mentioned that this is because the word was altered to suit its meaning: the ḍād (with the dot) is for weight and its articulation is extended, so it was made for what indicates "the more," while the ṣād has a narrow and subtle position, so it was made for what indicates "the little."

Al-Hasan (with a difference of opinion reported from him), Qatadah, and Naṣr ibn Asim read it with a ḍamma on the qāf and a plain ṣād, which is a noun for the thing grasped, like muḍghah (a piece of chewed meat) being the noun for what is chewed. "Then I cast it" (meaning, I threw it into the gilded ornaments, and it is said, into the belly of the calf, and what happened, happened).

"And thus my soul suggested to me" (meaning, it adorned it and made it appear good to me). This is an allusion to the source of the aforementioned action, and this is in the manner of the Almighty’s saying, "And thus We have made you a middle nation." The essence of his answer is that what he did proceeded purely from following the whims of the soul that commands evil, not for any other reason based on rational proof, transmitted evidence, or divine inspiration.

This is what has been narrated from the Companions and their followers (may God be pleased with them), and the majority of the great commentators followed them. Abu Muslim al-Isfahani said: There is no explicit statement in the Quran of what they have mentioned. There is another interpretation here, which is that the "Messenger" refers to Moses (peace be upon him), and his "trace" is his way and path which he commanded and walked upon. A man might say, "So-and-so follows the trace of such-and-such," if he emulates his path. The formulation of the verse according to this is: When Moses (peace be upon him) turned to the Samiri with blame and questions regarding the matter that led him to mislead the people with the calf, he said, "I perceived what they did not perceive," meaning: I knew that what the people were upon was not the truth, and "I had taken a handful from your trace," meaning something of your religion, "and I cast it," meaning I threw it away and did not hold fast to it. His referring to Moses (peace be upon him) using the third-person pronoun is like one addressing a prince: "What is the prince's opinion on such-and-such?" His use of the title "Messenger" for him (peace be upon him) is a form of sarcasm, as he was an infidel denying him, similar to the Almighty’s saying, relating the words of the disbelievers: "O you to whom the Reminder has been sent, you are indeed mad."

Some supported him, arguing that it is closer to investigation. It makes the commentators' claim that "Gabriel (peace be upon him) is not known by the title of Messenger" weak, and he had no mention beforehand, so the alif-lām in "The Messenger" would not refer to a preceding mention. Also, their claim requires assuming an omitted word, which is contrary to the principle. Furthermore, that the Samiri would be singled out for seeing Gabriel (peace be upon him) and recognizing him from among all the people is very far-fetched. Also, how could he know that the trace of his horse's hoof would have this strange, miraculous effect of bringing life to inanimate matter, turning it into flesh and blood? If that were the case, the trace itself would be more worthy of life. Moreover, when does an infidel discover earth of this nature? A speaker could say: Perhaps Moses (peace be upon him) discovered something else similar to this, and because of it, he brought forth miracles; thus, it would be in the same category as the miracles brought by the Messengers (peace be upon them). Furthermore, disbelief and the act of leading astray after having known the prophethood of Moses (peace be upon him) through the coming of this noble messenger to him is highly unlikely.

The response given is: It is established in the Holy Quran that the term "Messenger" is applied to Gabriel (peace be upon him); the Almighty said: "Indeed, it is the word of a noble Messenger." The lack of a previous mention does not prevent him from being known. It is possible that the application of "Messenger" to him was common among the Children of Israel, especially if we say the report is correct that he (peace be upon him) used to nourish the infants they cast into caves during the time Pharaoh was killing them. As for the assumption of an omitted word, it is more frequent in the speech than can be counted and has been established in the Book of God more than once. That he saw Gabriel (peace be upon him) and others did not was a trial from the Almighty, so that God might accomplish a matter that was to be done. His knowledge of the effect of that trace was as mentioned because it was cast into his heart that he would not cast it upon anything without saying "Be such and such" except that it would be, as in the report of Ibn Abbas, or it was because of what he witnessed of the emergence of plants from the footprints, as in some accounts. It is also possible he heard that from Moses (peace be upon him). As for what was mentioned regarding the trace itself being more worthy of life, it is not conceded; do you not see that an elixir turns whatever it is cast upon into gold, while it does not become gold itself? A miracle is coupled with the claim of messengership from God and the challenge. They have said: When someone claims messengership and demonstrates a miracle, and it is for a hidden reason unknown to those to whom he is sent, God Almighty provides—and must provide—the clarification of the reality of that by showing its equal without the claim of messengership, or something similar, or by making the claimant such that he cannot perform that miracle due to that reason, by stripping away the power of effect or the like, so that people may not have an argument against God after the messengers, and for Him, the Almighty, is the conclusive argument. They allowed the appearance of a miracle not from a hidden cause at the hands of one who claims divinity because his falsehood is apparent rationally and textually, and the establishment of the argument against him does not depend on refuting him in the manner mentioned above. The claim that disbelief and leading others astray by the Samiri is impossible after he knew of Moses' prophethood is in the highest degree of fallacy; the Almighty said: "And they rejected them, while their souls were certain thereof." The disbelief of the Samiri is no further than the disbelief of Pharaoh, and he had seen what he had seen.

As for what Abu Muslim mentioned, despite his opposition to what has been transmitted from the best of generations—which is not the type of thing that can be said by mere opinion, as it carries the status of a report from the Prophet—it is also true that the expression for Moses (peace be upon him) in the third person is far-fetched, and his desire to interpret "So I took a handful, etc." is even further from the noble arrangement. Moreover, casting away what one knows is not the truth is not considered "soul suggestion" in any way, so it does not befit ending his answer with that. Thus, his claim that what he mentioned is closer to investigation is invalid in the view of those who verify matters.

The Jews claimed that what the Samiri cast were pieces of jewelry upon which some talismans were inscribed, and that Jacob (peace be upon him) had hung them around the neck of Joseph (peace be upon him) when he was small, just as people hang amulets around the necks of their children today—sometimes made of silver with verses, names, or talismans inscribed on them. He had obtained them, and he cast them with the jewelry of the Children of Israel, and what happened, happened, due to the property of what was inscribed on them. Thus, he intended by "the Messenger" the messenger of the Children of Israel in Egypt previously, namely Joseph (peace be upon him). No report, authentic, weak, or even fabricated, has reached us regarding what they claimed. Yes, it has reached us that Jacob had made the inherited shirt into an amulet and hung it around Joseph's neck. Some interpreted the Almighty's saying, "Take this shirt of mine," etc., in this way. How could those liars forget to claim that the "trace" was that shirt? For it has been established in the "Best of Stories" in the Almighty's saying: "Take this shirt of mine and cast it upon my father's face, he will regain his sight." There is a total correlation between the recovery of the afflicted and the life of the inanimate. If they had committed to this lie, it might have been more acceptable to the likes of al-Isfahani, who cast behind their backs what was narrated from the Companions—things that cannot be said through mere opinion. We seek refuge with God Almighty from going astray.