Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:61

(He said, O my people): This is a resumption of speech in the style of the preceding one. (O my people): He called them by attributing them to himself to incline them toward the truth. (There is no error in me): This is a negation of error from his noble self in the most eloquent manner. For the [letter] ta [in dalala] signifies a single instance, and since the context requires hyperbole in response to their foolish claim, this is necessitated. The unit [of error] derived from it is considered in terms of the least amount that can be meant; thus, the meaning is: "There is not in me the smallest bit of error, let alone manifest error."

Whatever may be imagined—that the negation of the essence is more eloquent, and that the negation of a thing with the condition of unity might be invalidated by the negation of the unit into a multiplicity—is refuted by the fact that the unit is not a limiting attribute. Rather, the expression is coined for the least part, which is the single instance that exists with or without multiplicity. Furthermore, the consideration of the unit condition in a general term within the context of negation is rejected. Suffice it as a witness that rajul (man) is coined for one of the species, and thus there is a distinction between it and usama (lion). When it occurs generally, that [unit] is not observed. Even if it were granted that one could say "There is not in him one error, but varied errors," this is not permissible in a context of opposition such as this, as stated in al-Kashf. With this, the objection raised against al-Kashshaf in this context is refuted.

In the prevailing proverb: "Singular nouns that refer to a species, between which and one of them there is a feminine ta, when negation is intended, using the singular is more eloquent; when affirmation is intended, using it [the ta] is more eloquent," as in this verse. Do not think that because dalal (error) and dalala (an error) are both verbal nouns from your saying "he erred, he errs, dalalan and dalalatan," that the two expressions are equal. This is because dalala here does not denote the verbal noun, but rather the single instance and the negation, as you have learned. The Prophet (peace be upon him) hyperbolized the negation due to their hyperbolized affirmation, for they—may he be far from it—held him to be established in error that was clear in its being error.

And His saying, Exalted is He: (But I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds): This is a rectification of what preceded it, lifting what might be imagined from it. This is—as it is said—because when the people affirmed error against him, they meant by it the abandonment of the religion of the forefathers and the claim of messengership. When he negated the error, it was imagined that he was on the religion of his forefathers and had abandoned the claim of messengership. Thus, the information was provided that he is a messenger and established on the straight path as a rectification for that.

It is also said: It is a rectification from what precedes it in view of what it necessitates of his being in the furthest ranks of guidance; for his messengership from the Lord of the worlds necessitates it inevitably. It is as if it were said: "There is no error in me, but rather I am at the furthest limit of guidance." The gist of this, according to what al-Tayyibi established, is that the function of lakin (but) is to mediate between two differing statements, one negative and one positive. The difference here is achieved in terms of meaning, just as in your saying: "Zayd came to me, but Amr was absent." The benefit of departing from the literal is the desire for hyperbole in affirming guidance to the greatest extent possible, just as he negated error. He followed the path of elaboration (itnab) because this rectification is an addition to the answer, since his saying "There is no error in me" was sufficient for it.

Thus, it is of the "wise style" (al-uslub al-hakim), which arrives at the transition to the invitation [to Islam] in a way that involves conceptual retrieval, for he began with the invitation to establish monotheism and sincere worship to Allah the Exalted. When he wanted to establish messengership, he could not, because they objected to him with their words, "We see you in manifest error." So, he seized the opportunity and integrated his purpose into the answer in the best way, presenting it in the manner of kindness and fair speech. He meant: "You claim to attribute error to me; look rather to what is more important for you than following your adviser, your trustee, and the messenger of the Lord of the worlds." Do you not see that when they did not object to Salih (peace be upon him), he followed the establishment of monotheism with the establishment of messengership? In this verse, there are five types of rhetorical figures (badi’). If the context necessitates this elaboration, then limiting oneself to a concise expression would be a shortcoming.

It is not hidden that this rectification is different from the rectification in the famous sense. Many scholars of Arabic have mentioned that rectification in lakin is to attribute to what follows it a judgment contrary to what precedes it, whether they differ in affirmation and negation or not. The author of al-Basit and a group interpreted it as removing what was imagined to be established. The speech regarding it is completed in al-Mughni. Considering the necessary implication to achieve rectification in the second sense is something that is hardly acceptable, for no one's imagination goes from negating error from himself to thinking that messengership is also negated, just as error was negated. Thus, he rectified it with lakin, as in your saying: "Zayd is not a jurist, but he is a physician." You know that if this does not return to what was established first, it is nothing.

It is said: When one of two opposites is negated, the imagination rushes toward the negation of the other opposite, not toward the negation of things that have no relation to it. This is why what occurs in the context of rectification is interpreted by what opposes error, for example. It is said: "Zayd is not standing, but he is sitting," and it is not said "but he is drinking" except after interpreting that the drinker is sitting. Some scholars of Rum stated: The sound view on this rectification is that it is like the saying: "There is no defect in them, except that their swords have notches from the clashing of armies," and his saying: "He is the full moon, except that he is the ocean overflowing; he is nothing but the lion, but he is the downpour." It is as if it were said: "There is no error in me, and no defect, except that I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds." You know that this type is called by them "affirming praise through what resembles blame." It has two categories: that in which a virtue is excepted from a trait of blame negated from the thing, [which is] a virtue for that thing, assuming its entry into the negated trait of blame; and that in which a virtue is established for a thing, followed by an exception tool, followed by another virtue for that thing. The apparent meaning is that what is in the verse is of the first category, though it is not independent of interpretation. So, reflect on this.

And the [preposition] min (from) in it is for the beginning of the end-point metaphorically, connected to an omitted [element] that serves as an adjective for "messenger," emphasizing the greatness of the self that the tanwin implies. It is as if it were said: "I am a messenger existing from the Lord of the worlds."