Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:3

Ibn Abi ‘Ablah and ‘Isa recited “lahiyatun” in the nominative case, as a second predicate after the first (for them). The secret behind the difference between the two predicates is not hidden. Lahiyah is derived from laha about a thing (with a kasrah on the ha), meaning to forget it, cease thinking of it, and turn away from it, as stated in al-Sihah. In al-Kashshaf, it is from laha ‘anhu, meaning to be absent-minded and negligent. Since it has been established in the previous discussion that negligence requires the negligent person to have no consciousness of the object of negligence—that it does not cross his mind nor strike his hearing—it is difficult to describe their hearts as negligent after hearing the verses, for by hearing them, the negligence had ceased, and they attained consciousness, even if they did not attain faith and remained in the abyss of humiliation and disappointment.

The answer provided is that describing them as such treats their lack of benefit from that consciousness as equivalent to its non-existence. This is similar to what is said regarding the verse: “And they surely knew that he who purchased it would have no share in the Hereafter. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew.” You are aware that there is no harm in intending by the negligence mentioned in the explanation of laha the act of abandoning and turning away, as clearly expressed by the terminology of al-Sihah. The reason this was not categorized as lahw (meaning playing), as is famous, is that following “yal‘abun” (playing) with that (meaning playing) would not befit the eloquence of the Revelation, nor would it conform to the majesty of its sublime arrangement, even if its meaning could be justified through some form of interpretation.

The "occurrence" (huduth) necessitated by the term “muhdathin” (newly revealed) is renewal, which implies being preceded by non-existence. Describing the Reminder as such refers to the aspect of its revelation (tanzil), not to its essence itself. Even if this were valid, it would be based on interpreting "the Reminder" as verbal speech and adopting the view common among the Ash‘aris regarding its creation, due to it being composed of letters and sounds. However, what the context requires and what good arrangement necessitates is the clarification that every time the warning and reminder were renewed for them, and the words of intimidation and caution were repeated to their ears, and the verses were sent down upon them, and the staff was shaken for them, and they were alerted from the slumber of negligence and ignorance as many times as the pebbles, and they were guided to the path of truth—this only increased them in flight. Whether that which is sent down is created or eternal is something that has no connection to the context, as is not hidden from those of understanding.

It has been permitted that "the Reminder" refers to the Speech of the Self (al-Kalam al-Nafsi), and attributing "coming" to it is metaphorical; in fact, attributing it to speech in general is likewise [metaphorical]. "Occurrence" is intended to mean renewal. It is said: describing it as such is from the perspective of revelation, so it does not contradict the statement of the eternity of the Speech of the Self, which its proponents from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah have held. As for the Hanbalis, who hold the verbal [speech] to be eternal like the Kalam al-Nafsi, they must interpret the description as pertaining to that [revelation] so that the verse may not be used as an argument against them. Al-Hasan ibn al-Fadl said the "Reminder" refers to the Prophet ﷺ, for he has been called a "Reminder" in the verse: “Allah has sent down to you a Reminder: a Messenger.” The verse “Is this...” which follows shortly, God willing, indicates this, though there is debate regarding it. In short, the verse is not one that can be used as an argument to refute the Ahl al-Sunnah, even the Hanbalis, as is not hidden.

The words of the Exalted, “those who did wrong,” are a substitute (badal) for the pronoun in “they concealed” (asarrū), as al-Mubarrad said, and Ibn ‘Atiyyah attributed this to Sibawayh. It contains an indication that they are described by grave wrongdoing in what they concealed. Abu ‘Ubaydah, al-Akhfash, and others said: It is the subject of “concealed,” and the waw is a letter indicating plurality, like the waw in qa’imuna (they are standing) and the ta in qamat (she stood). This follows the dialect of “akalanī al-baraghith” (the fleas ate me), a dialect of the Azd Shanu’ah. Their poet said: "They blame me for buying palm trees / they all blame me." It is a good dialect, as Abu Hayyan asserted, not anomalous as some claimed. Al-Kisa'i said: It is a subject, and the sentence before it is its predicate, placed first to emphasize it. The meaning is: "They, those who did wrong, concealed the whispering." The definite noun was placed in the position of the pronoun to register their action as being "wrongdoing." It is said that it is the predicate of a deleted subject (i.e., "They are those who..."), and it is said that it is the subject of a deleted verb (i.e., "Those who did wrong said..."), for the verb "to say" is often omitted. Al-Nahhas favored this. On all these views, it is in the nominative case.

It is also permitted that it be in the accusative case due to disapproval (al-dhamm), as al-Zajjaj went, or due to the omission of "I mean" (a‘ni), as some have gone. It may be in the genitive case as an adjective for "the people," as Abu al-Baqa' said, or a substitute for it, as al-Farra' said. Both, as you can see...

His saying, “Is this anything but a human like you?” is in the position of the accusative as the object of a deleted verb after the relative noun and its connection. It is an answer to a question arising from what preceded it, as if it were said: "What did they say in their whispering?" It was replied: "They said, 'Is this...' etc." Or it is a substitute for “concealed,” or coordinated to it. It is said it is a circumstantial state (hal), meaning: "saying, 'Is this...?'" and it is the object of a deleted verb before the relative noun, as al-Nahhas chose. It is also said it is the object of the "whispering" itself because it carries the meaning of "saying," and the defined verbal noun may be acted upon (as held by al-Khalil and Sibawayh). It is also said to be a substitute for it, meaning: "They concealed this discourse." “Hal” (is) is in the sense of negation and is not for astonishment-based questioning, as Abu Hayyan claimed. The hamzah in the words of the Exalted, “Will you then approach magic?” is for denial, and the fa is for coordination to a deleted element necessitated by the context. His saying, the Exalted, “...while you see”—this is a circumstantial state from the subject of “approach,” confirming the denial and emphasizing the rejection. They meant, as it was said: "This is nothing but a human like you," i.e., of your own kind, "and what he brought is magic; you know that, yet you approach and attend it by way of submission and acceptance, while you perceive clearly that it is magic." They said this based on what was rooted in their deviant belief: that a messenger cannot be but an angel, and that everything that appears at the hands of a human in terms of miracles is of the category of magic. By "magic" here, they meant the Quran; in this is a denial of its reality in the most extreme way. May Allah destroy them, how they are deluded! They only concealed that because it was by way of strengthening the pact, arranging the beginnings of evil and corruption, and preparing the premises of cunning and plotting to demolish the affair of prophethood and extinguish the light of religion. And Allah refuses but to perfect His light, even if the disbelievers dislike it.

It is said that they concealed it to say to the Messenger ﷺ and the believers: "If what you claim is true, then inform us of what we have concealed." Al-Kashf refuted this, stating that the composition does not support it, nor does it suit the exaggeration in His saying, “Those who did wrong concealed their whispering,” nor His saying, “Will you then approach magic?”