Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:5

{Nay, they said, "A medley of dreams."}

This is a disjunction from the perspective of the Exalted Truth, transitioning from the narration of their previous statement to the narration of another turbulent and false statement. That is, they did not limit themselves to saying concerning him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—"Is this aught but a mortal like you?" nor regarding the Noble Quran that appeared through his hands, "It is magic." Nay, they said, "It"—meaning the Quran—"is a medley of dreams." Then, they fluctuated from that and said, {Nay, he has forged it}—from his own inclination, without it having any basis or the semblance of a basis. Then they disjoined again and said, {Nay, he is a poet}. What he has brought is poetry, which depicts to the listener meanings that have no reality. This turbulence is the hallmark of the falsifier and the confused, for he remains shifting between the false and the falser, and oscillating between the corrupt and the more corrupt.

The first [statement] is from the speech of the Mighty and Majestic, and it is transitionary, with that which preceded—in view of its particularity—being that from which the transition occurs. The latter two are of their narrated speech, and they are invalidating due to their hesitation and bewilderment in their fabrications. The entire quoted passage is included within the "secret conversation." It is also permissible for the first to be transitionary—with that which preceded being that from which the transition occurs, disregarding its particularity—and for the sentence not to be included in the "secret conversation." Both views are plausible, and they differ only in the meaning of "nay" (bal), and in the first being a narration while the latter two are narrated, which poses no obstacle.

It has also been suggested that the first [statement] is within their own speech and is also invalidating, related to their saying, "It is magic," which is indicated by "Will you then approach magic?" This was refuted on the grounds that it is only valid if the Noble Quranic arrangement stated, "They said, 'Nay...'"—to indicate the narration of their disjunction, and its being from their [own hearts]. The weakness of this is apparent. It has also been answered that it is a disjunction in their speech narrated by the implicit [verb of] saying before the words of the Exalted, "Is this..." or that which the secret conversation contained, and the [verb of] saying was repeated due to the separator, or because it was not explicitly stated; the weakness of this is also apparent.

It has also been suggested that all three are from the speech of the Mighty and Majestic, on the basis that this is a descent/gradation in the stages of corruption, meaning that their second statement is more corrupt than the first, and the third is more corrupt than the second, and likewise, the fourth is more corrupt than the third. This type of disjunction is termed "advancement" (taraqqi), but it was not called an advancement here to signal the advancement in ugliness—a descent in reality. The face of this is, as stated in al-Kashf, that their saying "it is magic" is closer [to the truth] than the second, for it may be said that "some eloquence is magic," since the confused speech that lacks structure bears no resemblance to the elegant arrangement that struck every orator dumb. Then, their claiming that it is, while being confused, a forgery is further and further removed [from reality], because the arrangement—by its substance and form—is among the most definitive proofs of truthfulness. How much more so when there is joined to it the fact that the speaker—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was known among them for integrity and truthfulness! The final [statement] is the delirium of those struck by brain fever, because they are the people most capable, by nature, of distinguishing between poetry and prose, between that for which poetry is brought and that for which this speech—which does not resemble the eloquent speeches of their orators, let alone anything else—was brought, and between the beauties of poetry and the beauties of this prose. This is regarding the form alone. Then, when you come to the substance and the composition of poetry from the imaginative and base meanings that even the boorish can discover—whereas this [Quran] consists of dogmatic certainties and practical religious matters upon which the axis of the hereafter and worldly life revolves, and by which the noble are distinguished—[the falsity] becomes more and more manifest. Furthermore, the speaker—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was one for whom poetry did not come easily; and had he desired it, they would have mixed with him and tasted him for forty years.

The fact that the composition of poetry is from the imaginative is in view of the majority; thus, it does not contradict his saying—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—"Indeed, in some poetry is wisdom," because that is in view of the rare exception. This is supported by the emphasis [of the particle "bal"], which indicates the hesitation regarding it. "Poet" (sha'ir) has come to mean "liar." Indeed, al-Raghib said: "The 'poet' in the Quran means the 'liar' by nature." According to this, they meant—may Allah kill them—"Nay, he—far be it from him—is the possessor of many forgeries." In this view, "nay" here does not signify invalidation, but rather the affirmation of the first judgment and an addition to it, as al-Raghib explicitly stated. There is disagreement regarding its occurrence for invalidation in the speech of Allah; Ibn Hisham affirmed it and provided the example of the words of the Exalted, {And they said, "The Most Merciful has taken a son." Exalted is He! Nay, they are honored servants.} Ibn Malik erred in the Sharh al-Kafiyah and denied it. The truth is that if the invalidation is of what issued from others, it is present in the Quran; but if it is of what issued from the Exalted Truth, it is not present; rather, it is impossible, for that would be "bad'" (bada'—a change of mind). It may be said that Ibn Malik meant the second type of disjunction. This view, even if it contains some remoteness, is not devoid of merit, as has been said. Consider this.

{Let him then bring us a sign}—the answer to a conditional clause omitted, which the context clarifies, as if it were said: "And if it is not as we said, but rather he is a Messenger from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, as he says, then let him bring us a sign, as the former ones were sent."

Al-Naysaburi estimated [the meaning] differently, stating—drawing from the Imam’s explanation of the gist of the verse—that they first denied that the Messenger was of the human species. Then, it is as if they said: "We concede that, but that which you claim to be miraculous is not miraculous; at most, it is a violation of habit, and not every violation of habit is a miracle. It could be magic. This is [the case] if we concede that the eloquence of the Quran is outside the norm, but we are far from conceding this premise, for we claim that it is at the peak of flaccidity and poor arrangement—a medley of dreams. We concede [it is speech], but it is of the genre of the speech of the mediocre—he forged it from himself. We concede it is eloquent speech, but it does not exceed the eloquence of poetry." If the state of this miracle is thus, "Let him then bring us a sign to which none of these possibilities can be applied, as the former ones were sent."

The "ma" (in "kama") is a relative pronoun in the position of a genitive [controlled] by the "kaf," and the sentence after it is a relative clause, with the referent omitted. The prepositional phrase is connected to an implied word that serves as an adjective for "sign," meaning: "Let him bring us a sign like the sign with which the former ones were sent." It does not harm that some of the conditions for the permissibility of omitting the genitive referent controlled by a particle are lacking, since there is no consensus on requiring that. Whoever required it considered the omitted referent here as accusative through the process of "omission and arrival," which is a wide path. By the "sign" to which comparison is made, they meant—as is reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both—the she-camel, the staff, and the like. It would have been more apparent to say, "Let him bring us what the former ones brought," or "like what the former ones brought," but he [the speaker] diverted from that to what is in the Noble arrangement because it indicates what the former indicated, with the addition of it being "sent with it" from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. The expression regarding him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—as "bringing" (al-ityan), and the diversion from the apparent [form] in what follows it, is an allusion to the fact that what he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—brought was from himself, and what the former ones brought was from Allah, the Blessed and Exalted. Thus, there is an appropriate insinuation in it to what preceded it of "forgery," as al-Khafaji said. He mentioned that what was said—that the diversion from "as the former ones brought" [was] because their intent was to demand a sign like the sign of Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them, and not others from among the signs brought by the rest of the prophets, peace be upon them—and that al-Baydawi signaled this, has no basis.

It is also permissible for "ma" to be an infinitive particle, and the "kaf" to be in the accusative position as a comparative infinitive—that is, an adjective for an omitted infinitive. Meaning: "Let him bring us a sign, a bringing that is like the sending of the former ones with [signs]." The validity of the comparison is that the intent is "like the bringing of the former ones with [signs]," because the sending of the messengers, peace be upon them, entails the aforementioned bringing, as in al-Kashshaf. In al-Kashf, it states that it indicates that the words of the Exalted, {as the former ones were sent}, is a metonymy in this context. The benefit of the diversion—after the beauty of the metonymy—is to establish it as an accepted sign by which the Message is proven, without dispute, and upon which the intended purpose is realized. The statement that "the sending" which is compared is an infinitive of a passive verb, and its meaning is "being sent by Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, with signs," does not enrich or suffice in justifying the comparison, because that is also distinct from "bringing," even if it is not separated from it.

It has been said that it is permissible to construe the Noble arrangement such that both "bringing" and "sending" are intended in both sides of the comparison, but that in the side of the object of comparison (the "like"), the "sending" was omitted, and in the side of the subject of comparison, the "bringing" was omitted, [each] sufficing for what was omitted in the other place. Its remoteness is apparent. Furthermore, it is apparent that their admission of the sending of the former ones is not from the core of their hearts, but is a matter necessitated by their turbulence and confusion. Some of the elite mentioned that what favors the interpretation that the preceding [part] is a narration of their turbulent statements is this [very] narration: they first denied that the Messenger was a human and built their [other] statements upon it; then they conceded that the former ones were possessors of signs and demanded that he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—bring the like of what they brought of them. Upon the premise of descending through the stages of corruption, this is understood as a descent from them, and the diversion to metonymy is to realize its descent from their standard. Contemplate this and be not heedless.