Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:97

(He said: "Go!")—A resumption, as has passed more than once. That is, Musa (peace be upon him) said, when the matter was as you have mentioned: "Go!"—that is, from among the people. His saying (Exalted is He): ("Then indeed for you in this life") to the end, is a justification for the requirement of the command. The "in" (fi) is connected to the stability of the agent in "for you" (laka), meaning: "It is established for you in this life," or it is connected to an elided term that functions as a state (hal) from the pronoun (ka), and the governing agent is the meaning of stability.

The aforementioned [phrase] also relies on what is the subject in meaning, namely His saying (Exalted is He): ("to say: 'No contact'"). It is not permissible to connect it to "to say" due to the existence of "that" (an). The excuse of those who connect the aforementioned adverbial phrase (zarf) to what follows has been presented just now, and nothing appears that satisfies the mind regarding the angle of the connection by the eminent scholar Abu al-Sa’ud. For in His saying (Exalted is He): ("What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, that you did not follow me?"), there is, in what follows, a promise allowing the connection of "in this life" to what follows it. That is: "Indeed, for the duration of your life, you shall be separated from people—a total separation—not according to [your] choice as required by religious duty, but according to compulsion that forces you to it."

This is because the Exalted (He) afflicted him with a disease of barrenness; no one could touch him, nor could he touch anyone, whoever they might be, except that they would immediately contract a severe fever. Thus, people avoided him and he avoided them. He would shout at the top of his voice: "No contact!" It was forbidden for him to meet, converse, dine, trade, or engage in any other dealings with people that are customary among them. He became more desolate among people than a murderer seeking refuge in a sanctuary or a wild beast fleeing in the wilderness. It is mentioned that he remained in the open country and abandoned the wilderness.

Al-Tabarsi mentions on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the meaning is: "It is for you and your offspring to say..." and he restricted the fever-sickness to cases where the person being touched was a foreigner. He mentioned that the remnant of his offspring still remain in that condition to this day. It is said: He was afflicted with obsessive thoughts (waswas) when Musa (peace be upon him) said that to him. Upon this is interpreted the poet's saying: And he became like the Samiri when Musa said to him: "No contact." Al-Jubba’i denied the aforementioned report about the fever-sickness and said: "He was afraid and fled, roaming the wilderness, not finding anyone to touch him, until he became—by virtue of his distance from people—like one who says 'No contact'."

The first [view] is the more correct. "Contact" (masas) is an infinitive of masa (to touch), like qital (fighting) is the infinitive of qatala (to fight), and it is negated by the la which negates the generic category. By this negation, a prohibition is intended, i.e., "Do not touch me, and I will not touch you." Al-Hasan, Abu Haywah, Ibn Abi ‘Ablah, and Qan’ab recited: (la masas) with the mim having a fathah and the sin having a kasrah at the end. It is on the scale of fajar and similar terms, such as their saying regarding the gazelles when they reach the water: "If it is there, then no ’abab (rushing/noise), and if it is lost, then no ’abab." They are—as Sibawayh, Al-Zamakhshari, and Ibn ‘Atiyyah stated—proper nouns for the touching, the playing, and the seeking. From this is the poet's saying: Tamim is like the clan of the Samiri, and his saying: except that he does not want for the Samiri a 'masas'.

Based on this, it is not the la that negates the generic category, because that is specific to indefinite nouns, while this is a definite noun among the proper nouns of generic categories. No [article] enters upon it, because the meaning is "Let there not be, or may there not be, from you a touching." This is better than the meaning being "I do not say 'touching'." It is apparent from the words of Ibn Jinni that it is a verbal noun, like nazal (come down), and the intention is the negation of the action, i.e., "I do not touch."

The secret in his punishment for his crime by what was mentioned is, as it is said, that it is the opposite of what he intended by showing that [gold calf]—for people to gather around him and support him; thus, it became the cause of their distance from him and his degradation, and he became more hateful to them than the mangy [camel] and more lowly than one who is mocked. It is also said: Perhaps the secret in that is the relationship of opposition between the two. For when he originated the temptation through that whose contact was a cause for the life of the lifeless [gold], he was punished by its opposite; for his contact was made a cause for the fever, which is one of the causes of the death of the living.

It is also said: He was punished by that so that the recompense would be of the same nature as the action, for as he cast aside [the truth], he was cast aside. For that avoidance was most similar to ostracization. This punishment, according to al-Bahr, was by an exercise of judgment (ijtihad) on the part of Musa (peace be upon him). It narrates the opinion that he intended to kill him, but Allah (Exalted is He) prevented him from that because he was generous. That is reported on the authority of Al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him). Some scholars have said that something similar to this occurred in our law in the case of the three who were left behind; for the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that they should not be spoken to, nor mixed with, and that they should be separated from their wives until Allah accepted their repentance. The school of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the murderer who seeks refuge in the sanctuary is similar to this, so that he may be forced to leave and then be killed in the lawful territory (hill).

("And indeed, for you is an appointment")—that is, in the Hereafter—("which you will not fail")—that is, Allah (Exalted is He) will not fail you in that appointment; rather, He will surely fulfill it for you after He has punished you in this world. Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr, and Al-A’mash recited with the ta having a dammah and the lam having a kasrah, based on the active voice, as if it were from "I found the appointment broken (ukhleftu al-maw’ida)," just as one says "I found him cowardly (ajbentuhu)." To this refers the saying of Al-A’sha: He stayed and shortened his night to be provisioned, then he departed, and found the appointment with Qatilah broken. It is also possible that the estimation is "You will not find the Promiser breaking it," so the first object is elided and the second is mentioned because it is the intended [meaning]. The meaning is: You will not be able to make the Promiser break His promise; rather, He will certainly fulfill it. Ibn Khalawayh reported on the authority of Ibn Nahik that he recited (lan tukhlifahu) with the ta having a fathah and the lam having a dammah. In al-Lawami’, it is stated that it was recited (lan yukhlifahu) with the ya having a fathah and the lam having a dammah, and it is from khalafahu yakhlufuhu when one comes after another. It is said: The meaning on the first recitation is: "And for you is an appointment you must inevitably encounter." On the second recitation: "And for you is an appointment that cannot be repelled." [This relates to] the saying "No contact," so understand.

Ibn Mas’ud and Al-Hasan—with a variation reported from him—recited (lan nukhlifahu) with a nun having a fathah and a lam having a kasrah, as if it were a narration of the saying of Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He). Ibn Jinni said: "That is, we shall not find it broken." Thus, it would be from the speech of Musa (peace be upon him), not by way of narration—which would be evident if the nun were given a dammah.

("And look at your god")—that is, your object of worship—("which you remained")—that is, zalta (you remained), as Ubayy and Al-A’mash recited; the first lam was elided for lightness. Abu Hayyan reported from Sibawayh that this elision is an anomaly of linguistic analogy and does not occur except when the end of the verb is quiescent. Some of his contemporaries said that this is analogical in every doubled-letter verb in the dialect of Banu Sulaym where the end of the verb is quiescent. Some said: It is analogical in the doubled-letter verb if its middle letter has a kasrah or a dammah. Ibn Mas’ud, Qatadah, Al-A’mash—with a variation reported from him—Abu Haywah, Ibn Abi ‘Ablah, and Ibn Ya’mar—with a variation reported from him—recited (zilta) with the za having a kasrah, based on the transfer of the lam's vowel to it after its own vowel was elided. From Ibn Ya’mar it is reported that he gave the za a dammah, as if it were built upon the occurrence of the verb in some words on the measure of fa’ala with a dammah on the middle letter, and in that case, it is said that the transfer occurs as it did in the kasrah.

("upon it")—that is, upon its worship—("devoted")—that is, remaining [steadfast]. He (peace be upon him) addressed him specifically, unlike the others who were devoted to its worship, those who said: ("We will not cease to be devoted to it until Musa returns to us"), because he was the leader of the misguidance and the chief of those ignorant people.

("We will surely burn it")—the answer to an elided oath, that is: "By Allah (Exalted is He), we will surely burn it with fire," as Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim reported from Ibn Abbas. This is supported by the recitation of Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Abu Ja’far in one narration, Abu Raja’, and Al-Kalbi: (lanuharriqannahu) in the light form, from the quadriliteral ahraqa (to burn). For burning is common in what exists, and this is evident in that it had become flesh and blood. Likewise is what is in the codex of Ubayy and ‘Abdullah: ("We will slaughter it and then we will burn it"). Abu ‘Ali allowed that nuharriquhu could be an exaggeration of haraqa (to file) iron—haraqan (with a fathah on the ra)—if he filed it with a file. This is supported by the recitation of ‘Ali (may Allah honor his countenance), Humayd, ‘Amr ibn Fa’id, and Abu Ja’far in one narration—and likewise Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): (lanuhriqannahu) with a fathah on the nun, a quiescent ha, and a dammah on the ra. For haraqa yahriqu with a dammah [on the middle letter] is specific to this meaning, as it is said. This is evident in that it had not become flesh and blood but remained in its mineral state. Some claimed that there is no impossibility, assuming it was alive, in filing it, as it is permissible for the People of Truth that life could be created in gold while it retains its gold-nature. Some who said that it became a living animal of flesh and blood said: "The filing was for the bones," and this is as you see. Al-Nasafi said: Breaking it with a file is a way of burning it with fire, for gold cannot be broken except by this method. Based on this, it is permissible to say that Musa (peace be upon him) filed it and then burned it with fire. It is countered that fire melts it and gathers it, it does not burn it and turn it into ashes, so perhaps that was by means of alchemy or the like.

("Then we will surely scatter it")—that is, we will surely winnow it—("in the sea")—that is, in the ocean, as Ibn Abi Hatim reported from Ibn Abbas. It is also reported from ‘Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) that he interpreted it as the river. His saying (Exalted is He): ("a scattering") is a confirming infinitive; that is, we will certainly do that to it in such a way that no essence or trace of it remains, and nothing of it will be found to be taken. Truly, he (peace be upon him) did everything he swore to do, as is evidenced by the command to look [at it]. He did not explicitly state the act itself to draw attention to the perfection of its manifestation and the impossibility of failure in His promise confirmed by an oath. In that is an added punishment for the Samiri and a demonstration of the foolishness of those who were tempted.

Al-Bahr states in explanation of the secret of this act: It appears that since the Samiri took the handful [of dust] from the track of the horse of Jibril (peace be upon him) while it was inside the sea, it was appropriate to scatter that calf—which he fashioned from the ornaments that originally belonged to the Copts, and into which he cast the handful—into the sea. This was to serve as a warning that what life was established upon had come to nothingness, and he cast it in the place where life was established. And the wealth of the Copts—Allah (Exalted is He) cast it into the sea so that no benefit would be gained from it, just as He (Glorified is He) cast the bodies of their owners and drowned them in it. The implication of this is not hidden.