Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:55

They said: When they heard his speech—upon him be peace—finding it improbable that what they were upon was misguidance, and wondering at his accusing them of misguidance in the most complete manner, they said: "Have you come to us with the truth?"—that is, with seriousness—"or are you of the jesters?"

That is, the mockers. The interrogation is not according to its apparent meaning; rather, it is an inquiry expressing improbability and astonishment. Their saying "or are you," etc., is its counterpart, a speech by one who claims fairness, hinting in the most subtle way that the second alternative is the established one, due to the types of hyperbole it contains. It was pointed out in al-Kashshaf, as stated in al-Kashf, that the original meaning is: "Is this which you have brought us seriousness and truth, or is it play and jest?" However, it turned away from that to what is in the noble arrangement of the text for the reason indicated. The author of al-Miftah said: "That is, have you newly introduced to us the engagement with truth, or are the states of childhood still persisting?" This is closer to the apparent meaning, and it contains an indication of the benefit of diverging from the externally equal counterpart and an explanation of the coming. The apparent view of the two shaykhs [al-Zamakhshari and al-Sakkaki] is that am (or) is conjunctive. Al-Allamah al-Tibi chose the view that it is disjunctive, saying: When they heard from him—upon him be peace—that which indicates the belittling of their gods and the accusation of misguidance against them and their forefathers in the most eloquent manner, and they witnessed his harshness and seriousness, they demanded from him—upon him be peace—the proof. It is as if they said: "Grant that we have imitated our forefathers in what we are upon, do you then have evidence for what you have claimed—have you come to us with the truth?" Then they turned away from that and came with am, which includes the meaning of bal (nay) of disjunction and the implied hamza (interrogative particle). Thus, they turned away with bal from what they had established and affirmed with the hamza, to its opposite, by way of emphasis and certainty. That is, they concluded that he was a jester and not a person of truth at all, because their inclusion of him in the group of jesters—that is, "You are drowned in play, entered into the group of those whose utmost affair in establishing claims is play and diversion"—by way of allusion and suggestion, indicated the establishing of that through proof and evidence. This allusion informs you that am cannot possibly be conjunctive, and likewise [the interpretation of] bal in what follows. The truth is that the possibility of its being disjunctive is something about which there is no doubt, but as for its necessity, there is room for consideration.