Tafsir of Ash-Shu`ara' 26:30

(He said) by way of showing him gentleness and in aspiration of his faith: (Even if I brought you something manifest?) That is, would you do that even if I brought you something manifest—meaning, something that clarifies the truthfulness of my claim? By this, he intends the miracle, for it combines the indication of the existence of the Creator and His wisdom with the indication of the truthfulness of the one at whose hand it appears.

Expressing it as "something" (shay') is for the sake of magnification. The waw is for conjunction with a sentence opposed to the aforementioned sentence, and the sum of the two conjoined sentences is in the position of a state (hal). The particle law (even if) serves to clarify the realization of what the preceding speech conveys regarding the judgment of every hypothetical state accompanying him, in a general sense, by applying it to the most remote and contradictory of those states. This is so that its realization with the other states becomes evident by way of priority; that is, "Would you do that in the state of my not bringing it?"

Prefixing the arrival with law rather than in (if) is not to clarify its impossibility in itself, but rather relative to Pharaoh. Some have considered the waw to be for the state, meaning that the sentence following it is a state—that is, "Would you do that while I bring a manifest thing?" This is the apparent meaning of al-Kashshaf here. The apparent meaning of al-Kashf is that the interrogation is one of negation, meaning: "You are not able to do that, even though I am a Prophet through the miracle."

The manifest interpretation is that this speech relates to the threat issued by the accursed one (Pharaoh), which is a reference in his interpretation to placing him (Moses), upon him be peace, among the imprisoned. It is as if he said: "Will you place me among the imprisoned if I take an god other than you, even if I brought you something manifest?"

Al-Tayyibi interpreted the speech of al-Kashshaf accordingly, then said: It is possible to say that the waw is conjunctive, and it requires something conjoined to it, which is what preceded at the beginning of the dialogue between the Prophet of Allah, the Exalted, and his enemy. The hamza is inserted between the conjoined and the conjunction for confirmation. The meaning is: "Will you acknowledge the Oneness and my messengership if I come to you after arguing with overwhelming proofs and manifest, brilliant miracles?" And law is in the sense of iz (when/if). This interpretation is supported by what is in al-A'raf: "I have come to you with a clear sign from your Lord, so send with me the Children of Israel. He said: If you have come with a sign, then bring it, if you are of the truthful." End quote.

It is as you see. It includes treating "manifest" (mubin) as derived from the intransitive abana, meaning "to be clear," whereas treating it as derived from the transitive abana—with the object omitted, as we indicated—is more appropriate for the context. When Pharaoh heard this speech from Moses, peace be upon him...