Tā-Hā: (72 - 76) They said, "We will never prefer you..."

Know that when the Almighty recounted Pharaoh's threat to those people, He then recounted their response, which indicates the complete certainty and perfect insight they had attained regarding the fundamentals of religion. They said: {We will never prefer you over what has come to us of clear proofs} (20:72). This implies that Pharaoh demanded they renounce their faith, or else he would inflict upon them what he had threatened. Their statement, {We will never prefer you}, was a reply to what he had said.

They clarified the reason: what came to them were clear proofs and evidence, whereas what Pharaoh mentioned pertains only to worldly matters. The benefits and harms of this world cannot conflict with the benefits and harms of the Hereafter.

As for His saying: {and by Him Who created us} (20:73), there are two interpretations:

1. The implied meaning is: "We will never prefer you, O Pharaoh, over what has come to us of clear proofs, and over Him Who created us," meaning, over obedience to and worship of the One Who created us.
2. It is permissible that it is in the genitive case (khafḍ) as an oath.

Know that when they realized that if they persisted in their faith, Pharaoh would do what he threatened, they said: {So decree whatever you are going to decree} (20:74). This is not an instruction for him to proceed, but rather an expression that his threat will absolutely not deter them from their faith and from what they have known of the Truth, both intellectually and practically.

Then they clarified why enduring this threat was easy for them, saying: {They said, "We have believed in our Lord, that He may forgive us our faults} (20:74). Since the fault closest to them in time was what they had publicly displayed—the sorcery—they added: {and what you compelled us to do of sorcery} (20:75).

They mentioned several reasons for their compulsion regarding the sorcery:

1. Ibn Abbas said: Kings in that era used to take some of their subjects and compel them to learn sorcery. When the learned sorcerers grew old, they would send young men to learn from them so that there would always be someone proficient. They said this because they were compelled first in learning and then in teaching.
2. The chief sorcerers were seventy-two: two Copts and the rest from the Children of Israel. They asked Pharaoh to show them Moses while he was asleep. They saw him guarded by his staff and said, "This is not a sorcerer; a sorcerer’s magic ceases when he sleeps." But he insisted they confront him.
3. Al-Hasan said: The sorcerers were gathered from various cities to oppose Moses (peace be upon him). They were compelled to attend the gathering, and perhaps they were also compelled to display their sorcery.
4. ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd said: The summons of the ruler is compulsion. This view is weak because the summons of a ruler, if not accompanied by fear, is not compulsion.

Then they said: {And Allah is better in reward} (20:75) for those who obey Him, {and more enduring} (20:75) in punishment for those who disobey Him. This is a response to Pharaoh’s statement: {And you will know which of us is more severe in torment and more enduring} (20:71).

Al-Hasan said: Glory be to Allah! These people were disbelievers, the most severe of disbelievers, yet faith was established in their hearts in the blink of an eye. It was not too great for them to say: {So decree whatever you are going to decree} concerning Allah! By Allah, today, one of you might accompany the Qur'an for sixty years and then sell his religion for a paltry price!

They concluded this speech by explaining the states of the believers and the criminals on the Day of Resurrection. Regarding the criminals, they said: {Indeed, whoever comes to his Lord as a criminal—then for him is Hell, wherein he will neither die nor live} (20:74).

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Some theologians from our school objected to this, saying: We do not concede that the perpetrator of a major sin is a criminal. The evidence is that Allah contrasted the criminal with the believer, as He said in this verse: {And whoever comes to Him a believer having done righteous deeds}, and He said: {Indeed, the criminals were those who used to laugh at those who believed} (83:29). Furthermore, He said: {for him is Hell, wherein he will neither die nor live}. A believer who commits a major sin, even if punished by fire, will not be described in this manner. The authentic Hadith states: (He will be brought out of the Fire for whomever has an atom's weight of faith in his heart).

Know that these objections are weak.

1. Regarding the claim that Allah contrasted the criminal with the believer: This is accepted, but it is only useful if it is established that the perpetrator of a major sin is a believer. The doctrine of the Mu'tazila is that he is not a believer, so this objector is basing his argument on his own doctrine, which is invalid here.
2. Regarding the claim that it is unfitting to say of the perpetrator of a major sin that {he will neither die nor live}: We do not concede this. The torment of Hell is of the utmost severity. Allah says: {Our Lord, indeed whoever You admit to the Fire - You have disgraced him} (3:192). As for the Hadith, we say: The Qur'an is transmitted by tawātur (mass transmission), so a solitary report (khabar wāḥid) does not contradict it.

It can also be argued that it is established in the principles of jurisprudence that the Qur'an can be specified by a solitary report. The opponent might reply that the solitary report yields only conjecture (ẓann), which is sufficient for practical matters (amaliyyāt), but this issue is one of creed (i‘tiqādiyyāt), not practical matters, so one cannot rely on it here.

If another person objects, saying: We agree that this verse is conditional upon the absence of repentance and that his punishment is not nullified by the reward of his obedience. The common factor in both scenarios is the absence of anything that nullifies that punishment. However, we believe that pardon nullifies punishment, and for the criminal for whom pardon does not occur, he must enter Hell.

Know that this objection is also weak. The condition of the absence of repentance is unnecessary because He said: {whoever comes to his Lord as a criminal}, meaning while he is a criminal. The repentant person is not described as having come to his Lord while being a criminal. As for the perpetrator of a minor sin, he is not called a criminal because criminal (mujrim) is a term of blame, and it is not appropriate to apply it to one who commits a minor sin.

Rather, the correct objection is to say: The generality of this threat is contradicted by the generality of the promise that follows it: {And whoever comes to Him a believer having done righteous deeds, then for those will be the highest degrees} (20:78). Our discussion concerns one who brings faith and righteous deeds, and then commits some major sins.

If it is argued: The punishment for the sin nullifies the reward for obedience. We ask: Why can it not be said that the reward of faith repels the punishment of sin? If they say: If that were the case, it would not be permissible to curse him or apply the prescribed legal punishment (ḥadd) to him. We reply: Cursing is not permissible according to us. As for applying the ḥadd, it might be for the purpose of trial (miḥna), as in the case of the repentant, or it might be for the purpose of exemplary punishment (tanķīl).

The Mu'tazila argue based on Allah’s saying: {As for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah} (5:38). Allah explicitly stated that the ḥadd must be applied as exemplary punishment. Anyone subjected to this cannot deserve praise and veneration. If that [praise/veneration] is negated, then the reward is negated, as we have stated. This indicates that the punishment for a major sin is more deserving of removing the preceding reward of obedience than the obedience itself is of repelling the subsequent punishment of the major sin. This is the extent of their argument regarding the threat.

The summary of the discussion reverts to the point that the text indicating the application of ḥadd as exemplary punishment contradicts the texts indicating that the person deserves reward. Why should prioritizing one over the other be preferable to the reverse? This is because the believer is divided into the thief and the non-thief. The thief is divided into the believing thief and the non-believing thief. Thus, neither has precedence over the other in terms of generality or specificity. When they conflict, they cancel each other out.

Furthermore, we do not concede that the particle man (whoever) definitively implies generality; rather, it is conjectural (ẓannī), and our issue requires certainty (qaṭ‘ī). Therefore, what they mentioned cannot be relied upon. The full discussion on this is found in the book Al-Maḥṣūl fī al-Uṣūl.

The response is that Allah made their coming to the place of the promise a metaphorical coming to Allah, similar to the saying of Abraham (peace be upon him): {Indeed, I am going to my Lord; He will guide me} (37:99).

Then He mentioned the state of the believers: {And whoever comes to Him a believer having done righteous deeds, then for those will be the highest degrees} (20:78). Know that His saying {having done righteous deeds} implies that he has performed all righteous deeds. This is, by consensus, not considered or possible. Therefore, this phrase should be interpreted as performing the obligatory duties (wājibāt).

Then He mentioned that whoever brings faith and righteous deeds will have the highest degrees, and He explained them: {Gardens of Eden beneath which rivers flow} (20:76).

In the verse, there is an indication that major sinners among the believers are forgiven, because Allah made the highest degrees of Paradise the reward for one who comes to his Lord with faith and righteous deeds. Therefore, the remaining degrees, which are not the highest, must belong to others—namely, the disobedient among the people of faith.

As for His saying: {And that is the recompense of those who purify themselves} (20:76), Ibn Abbas interpreted this as: those who say Lā ilāha illā Allāh. I say: Since this verse indicates that the highest degrees are the recompense for one who purifies himself (i.e., cleanses himself of sins), it logically follows that the degrees that are not high cannot be the recompense for one who purifies himself. They belong to others who committed sins, whom Allah pardoned by His grace and mercy.

Know that the Qur'an does not state that Pharaoh inflicted upon those believing people what he threatened them with, but this is established in the narrations.

(The text transitions here to the narrative of the Exodus, continuing the context of Pharaoh and Moses.)